Skip to main content

Full text of "The Bulletin of zoological nomenclature"

See other formats


RAN tlhe bet lisbe 
ahs SEAS HS 


— —— i a s. 
enn oe 
Vai si a) ANN she pase fips se 
RN Aa MV as Ty! 


i ay 
SEALE a 
Rev a 
MEN Me Ter athy 
baenty 
SEAR aie ee) 
Hie nas agent aha 

s Hache : 
what Y Perea Peh ane oe FNS 


oT PRG ap SPOEEAS LT Ay 
SU i ASE TASER OF ty Bt at SHIN, 
PALES Shiv hand esa Hal gE OORT thet ab ah 
SAAN Sexiy gs AVS Fatt aren USD RRM gate Mest NY ti Astle 
: haecha in “ nis SANE AVON tart tea Van 


aesttaing wet adt we 
sy Qioe OY, PRT Ct Rist ast Meslay Pahaineray aa ya! Sone Frat arewi Ng?) 2 bs 
BA} + Allee: ASSnans Vb aTR tN 
att Seibel botiee “i She a ae ne VC Siete lV a hig 
fe MA NCU GE TROT TANT QUEM Hgth att aehatigsl hry HVS 
Pagwrmawed yy Shad thay “ ‘i ahaa whe tdait hl sine habe 
that ae Seta gph a edd RIVET BENT gD athe baleen we 
VERO Ost ON TEAR atTAL 0} OWS OT Sy 
. any ree Site oe Ses Sav st 
ENTS AAN CARY SBME IP beg d ON GR 
OA AS hs! ny Piha AN e dele, 
Bae SR SAPNA GANS ath Waryaharhach areal} WYN halts 
ORME TE IND Mane saben veoahs Suit slate 
ct 


WAIST AUOE AEA Ove vee halt perce 
x peda ESTES he Spake Yap 


Hans 


Le TN ST a ah 
MPGAT PENNE ST enya ae het a at 

SOR RIN St eo APS at Yd 
SEV A ety 


ni 


sthatatenniats 


WE SNENS 
ies 


SUR EOS ETT SE 
x hel Wa “a aise HSIN Sav asthe ah) re als 


a at oat 


AAP Ath e EE VM ted 
HS etay 
Si eagctaS 


aie Ne 4S 


Nae 


‘ SN aren morn eae 
abe MAHL AA SRA TOU ES PATS SEIS STN) Sil SI 
Wai VARNES DALAL at eT GIES Fa SIGS) pag ee a 

JR AWN ath PNT haa GTR RGANSIN 
Wathgeh bg POLL Sosstadeabienhahing Ate 


sey see 
Shake bee 


sth SATE STATS ie ANS Percents i 
WEIMER OR EN 


VANE Saray 


rity 


eeragyos 


Taney ONG RH Fue ihe Fatale 


Pare discern 


Vt WG Nd ey nae ee eats 
Hemrke Sey he NNN eda saya ONT 
5 AWAY SNAP 


ai Sate Vente a Oke hey 
anys Seta re anv hy ie SAH deli as 
Salinity = 


a Ny TENG 
PRES RS tae 


NOVELS OTR 


Vass ected 


Siibath NIN 


TR VEINS art 


MET Se A atte lpesetiogd 
a 


(aan Sateen 


ey ENTS 
Pop reienserrien 


aes Sg : 


SC A EES BENE IT 
A asad 


POE Naas 


EEG OT Sy at 
NEE Pa eiN EUS. 


MING VIN Seseti athe ae 


Se UTS he he Sate iS bein e 
SN Taras oa he BE 


Tred SS, 


Bele SA heey 


Sori kate te 


oh 
Ne A Oa 
; PACA by be 


Ta ae dag © 


SLRS Ma 
Pee ea 


egetioitia. 8 


Pah e LONG) Set ee 
eos) OMe « 


SA RRS EH ENED 


SON TEL MOTE aN Eg SY 


See Baby 


Mh ng er ele eye 
Shela Dd piT 


Sat ie ay 


wei NPs gt 


ASUS en ae 


er EiSwesY Ha 


yy Tatlg te Lael nite 


POV IIA Het Se 


Fra 


BEIM 
ES} 


sh te Bane tes 


HST at 


Sie ey 


f 
q 


, 


ny 


io east 


eae” 
Lih4 |, ) 


v 
i 
ne 


esis} 


uu} 


Volume 68, Part 1, 31 March 2011, pp. 1-92 8 ISSN 0007-5167 


The Bulletin of 
Zoological Nomenclature 


of the International Commission - 
on Zoological Nomenclature - 


THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a registered charity 
(no. 211944) based in the U.K. The annual subscription for 2011 is £200 or US$340 or €280, 
postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a subscription of £100 or 
US$170 or €140. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: 

The Executive Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

Natural History Museum 

Cromwell Road 

London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. +44 207 942 5653; e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) 

Electronic communication is preferred. Manuscripts sent by post should include a digital 

copy of the text and figures. 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


Officers | 
President Dr J. van Tol (The Netherlands) 
Vice-President Prof. D. G. Fautin (U.S. A.) 
Executive Secretary Dr E. Michel (U.K.) 
Councillors indicated below with * 
Members 
Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga* Prof. S. Lim (Malaysia; Parasitology) 
(Spain; Coleoptera) Prof. A. Minelli (U/taly; Myriapoda) 
Dr A. Ballerio (Italy; Coleoptera) Prof. P. K. L. Ng (Singapore; 
Dr N. G. Bogutskaya (Russia; Ichthyology) Crustacea, Ichthyology) 
Prof. P. Bouchet* (France; Mollusca) Dr T. Pape (Denmark; Diptera) 
Prof. D. J. Brothers Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera) 
(South Africa; Hymenoptera) Prof. D. J. Patterson (U.S.A.; Protista) 
Prof. D. G. Fautin (U.S.A.; Cnidaria) Dr R. Pyle* (U.S.A.; Ichthyology) 
Dr M. J. Grygier (Japan; Crustacea) Dr G. Rosenberg* (U.S.A.; Mollusca) 
Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) Prof. P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) 
Dr M. S. Harvey (Australia; Arachnida) Dr J. van Tol (The Netherlands; Odonata) 
Prof. J. Kojima (Japan; Hymenoptera) Dr J. E. Winston (U.S.A.; Bryozoa) 
Dr M. Kottelat (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Dr D. Yanega (U.S.A.; Entomology) 
Dr F.-T. Krell (U.S.A.; Coleoptera) Dr Z.-Q. Zhang (New Zealand; Acari) 


Dr S. O. Kullander (Sweden; Ichthyology) Prof. H. Zhou (China; Coleoptera) 
Prof. Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera) 
Secretariat 


Dr E. Michel (Executive Secretary and Bulletin Editor-in-Chief) 
Dr S. Nikolaeva (Bulletin Zoologist and Scientific Editor) 

S. Tracey (Bulletin Zoologist and Scientific Administrator) 

N. Dale-Skey Papilloud M.Sc. (Bulletin Zoologist) 

E. W. Baker (Webmaster and Development Officer ) 


Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 
Dr M. Dixon (Chairman) 
Ms M. J. Clifford-Turner (Treasurer and Managing Director) 


Abstracts of Applications and Opinions, Comments in full and details of the names published 
in the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology are posted on the 
Commission’s website (http://iczn.org) 


Cover image: Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa (Linnaeus, 1758), the European mole cricket (Latin: 
gryllus — cricket, talpa — mole, from its fossorial limbs, fine hairs and subterranean habit). 
Widespread in the Western Palaearctic region and introduced into parts of the U.S.A. this 
insect can be an agricultural pest in significant numbers, although in the U.K. it is extremely 
rare and subject to a U.K. Biodiversity Action Plan (report sightings to g.beccaloni@ 
nhm.ac.uk). Detail from plate 456 of British Entomology: Original Drawings, vol. 10, by John 
Curtis (1862) (© Natural History Museum, London). 


© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2011 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


Volume 68, part 1 (pp. 1-92) 31 March 2011 
Notices 


(1) Applications and correspondence relating to applications to the Commission 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given on the inside of the 
front cover and on the Commission website. English is the official language of the 
Bulletin. Please take careful note of instructions to authors (present in a one or two 
page form in each volume and available online (at http://iczn.org/content/guidelines- 
case-preparation) as incorrectly formatted applications will be returned to authors 
for revision. The Commission’s Secretariat will answer general nomenclatural (as 
opposed to purely taxonomic) enquiries and assist with the formulation of applica- 
tions and, as far as it can, check the main nomenclatural references in applications. 
Correspondence should be sent by e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ where possible. 

(2) The Commission votes on applications eight months after they have been 
published, although this period is normally extended to enable comments to be 
submitted. Comments for publication relating to applications (either in support or 
against, or offering alternative solutions) should be submitted as soon as possible. 
Comments may be edited (see instructions for submission of comments at 
http://Aiczn.org/content/instructions-comments). 

(3) Requests for help and advice on the Code can be made direct to the 
Commission and other interested parties via the Internet. Membership of the 
Commission’s Discussion List is free of charge. You can subscribe and find out more 
about the list at http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list. 

(4) The Commission also welcomes the submission of general-interest articles on 
nomenclatural themes or nomenclatural notes on particular issues. These may deal 
with taxonomy, but should be mainly nomenclatural in content. Articles and notes 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary. 


New applications to the Commission 


The following new applications have been received since the last issue of the 
Bulletin (volume 67, part 4, 20 December 2010) went to press. Under Article 82 of 
the Code, the existing usage of names in the applications is to be maintained until the 
Commission’s rulings on the applications (the Opinions) have been published. 

CASE 3543: Stromateus niger Bloch, 1795 (currently Parastromateus niger; 
Osteichthyes, Perciformes, CARANGIDAE): proposed conservation of prevailing usage 
by the suppression of its senior synonym Coryphaena apus Briinnich. E.H. Williams 
Jr. & L. Bunkley-Williams. 

CASE 3544: Apis armbrusteri Zeuner, 1931 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed 
conservation by designation of a neotype. M.S. Engel, U. Kotthoff & T. Wappler. 


2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


CASE 3545: Heterohelix (Foraminiferida, HETEROHELICIDAE): proposed suppres- 
sion. M.D. Georgescu. 

CASE 3546: Radiolites fleuriausa d’Orbigny, 1842 (currently Praeradiolites 
fleuriausus; Bivalvia, RADIOLITIDAE): proposed replacement as type species of Prae- 
radiolites Douvillé, 1902 by Sphaerulites ponsiana @ Archiac, 1835. J.M. Pons & E. 
Vicens. 

CASE 3547: Cryptotermes dudleyi Banks, 1918 (Insecta, Isoptera, KALOo- 
TERMITIDAE): proposed precedence over Calotermes havilandi parasita Wasmann, 
1910. K. Krishna & M.S. Engel. 

CASE 3548: A proposal for the treatment of Mémoires pour servir a histoire des 
insectes by De Geer (1752-1778) and the additional volume by Retzius (1783). F. 
Wieland and F. Welter-Schultes. 

CASE 3549: Macropsalis fabulosa Phillipps & Grimmett, 1932 (Arachnida, 
Opiliones, PHALANGIOIDEA): proposed replacement of the neotype. C.K. Taylor & 
M.S. Harvey. 

CASE 3550: Graeteriella Kiefer, 1937 (Copepoda, Cyclopoida, CYCLOPIDAE): 
proposed precedence over Graeteriella Brehm, 1926. F. Fiers. 

CASE 3551: Orithyia Fabricius, 1798 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura): pro- 
posed precedence over Orithuja Weber, 1795. P.K.L. Ng, D. Guinot & P.J.F. Davie. 

CASE 3552: Cerithiopsis tubercularis var. nana Jeffreys, 1867 (currently Cerithi- 
opsis nana; Mollusca, Gastropoda, CERITHIOPSIDAE): proposed conservation of usage 
of the specific name by suppression of Cerithiopsis nana Mayer, 1864. A. Cecalupo & 
E. Robba. 

CASE 3553: Helix atlantica Morelet & Drouét, 1857 (Mollusca, Gastropoda, 
Pulmonata): proposed conservation of current usage by designation of a neotype. 
A.M. de Frias Martins, L. Silva, K. Jordaens & T. Backeljau. 

CASE 3554: Anaphes Haliday, 1833 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed designation 
of A. fuscipennis Haliday, 1833 as the type species. J.T. Huber, J.S. Noyes, A. 
Polaszek & S. Triapitsyn. 


Page charges — new policy 


The costs of publishing the BZN now require us to request page charges of £30 per 
page for all Cases, General Articles and for Comments that are one full printed page 
or longer. We do not want to discourage contributions to the work of the 
Commission, thus a waiver is available for authors who are unable to pay. A waiver 
form is available on the ICZN website (http://iczn.org/content/page-charges) and 
should be signed by you and your head of department if you are in a professional 
position and include a brief explanation of why you are unable to help support 
publication costs. Examples of appropriate waiver considerations include authors in 
unwaged positions or in countries with currency exchange difficulties. If a waiver is 
not received and approved at the time of acceptance of your contribution for 
publication, you will be sent an invoice for your page costs. Payment can be accepted 
by PayPal, credit card or cheque. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 3 


The International Trust For Zoological Nomenclature 


The International Trust For Zoological Nomenclature (the Trust) was founded in 
1947 to manage the Commission’s financial matters. It is a registered charity, based 
in the U.K. (No. 211944). At present, the Trust consists of 27 members from 
13 countries. Discussion of the Trust’s activities can be found on the ICZN website 
http://iczn.org/. 


Members of the Trust 


Dr M. Dixon (U.K.) (Chairman and Director) 
Dr H.M.F.P. André (Belgium) 

Dr M.N. Arai (Canada) 

Mr H.S. Barlow (Malaysia) 

Prof. D.J. Brothers (South Africa) Commissioner 
Ms M.J. Clifford-Turner (U.K.) Treasurer & Managing Director 
Mr P. Cooke (U.K.) 

The Earl of Cranbrook (U.K.) 

Prof. R.A. Fortey (U.K.) 

Dr U. Fritz (Germany) 

Prof. J.I. dos R Furtado (Singapore) 

Dr M.K. Howarth (U.K.) 

Prof. T. Jones (U.K.) 

Dr S. Knapp (U.K.) 

Prof. Dr O. Kraus (Germany) 

Dr C. Kropf (Switzerland) 

Mr A. McCullough (U.K.) 

Prof. A. Minelli (Italy) Commissioner 

Dr T. Nishikawa (Japan) 

Dr J.L. Norenburg (U.S.A.) 

Dr M.J. Oates (U.K.) 

Mr R. Pethiyagoda (Sri Lanka) 

Dr A. Polaszek (U.K.) 

Mr N.J. Robinson (U.K.) 

Ms R. Sangster (U.K.) 

Dr H.-D. Sues (U.S.A.) 

ir. Tiller (France) 

Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (U.K.) 


4. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


What’s in a name? Attenborough & Fortey on animals 
ICZN fundraising lecture 


Sir David Attenborough and Prof. Richard Fortey presented a lecture celebrating the 
work of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) and the 
global need for stable zoological nomenclature on 16 December 2010. Nearly 700 
people filled the beautiful Ondaatje Theatre of the Royal Geographical Society, 
London, to capacity. Despite cold and rainy London weather, the hall was abuzz 
with anticipation as people arrived to see these titans of natural history presentation 
and palaeo and earth sciences writing. A busy and highly efficient team of volunteers 
helped people get checked in, directed them to the stand selling books by the 
speakers, to the bar and to their seats. Members of the International Trust for 
Zoological Nomenclature (ITZN) welcomed specially invited VIPs. The excitement 
was palpable. 

The lecture began with a warm welcome and insightful introduction from 
Dr Michael Dixon, Chairman of the Trust. Professor Fortey then followed with a 
lively explanation of why biological nomenclature is so critical and how the 
Commission works. He continued with examples from history and his own work on 
trilobites that revealed the rich background and meaning in taxonomic names. The 
audience laughed at names that say it all — about the organism, or about the 
taxonomist and what they were really expressing with a particular animal name. 
Sir David then took the stage, relating examples of scientific names that each told a 
story in themselves. His ability to imbue every description with images and emotion 


Fue 


Fig. 1. Sir David Attenborough and Prof. Richard Fortey bringing nomenclature to life on the stage of 
the Royal Geographical Society. (Image: E. Michel/NHM Interactive Media Film Unit). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 5 


Fig. 2. Sir David Attenborough has been a long- Fig. 3. Sir David telling the audience that he 


term proponent of the ICZN. He and Professor 
Richard Fortey are old friends and have recently 
filmed together in Morocco for the BBC special 
First Life. (Photo: R. Fortey). 


thought Linnaeus was making a nomenclatural 
joke about early collectors with the name Para- 
disaea apoda, as even then no taxonomist would 
have seriously believed that the Great Bird of 


Paradise had neither feet nor wings. (Image: E. 
Michel/NHM Interactive Media Film Unit). 


Fig. 5. After the lecture both speakers enthusias- 
tically settling in to sign books and talk with their 
fans, who also got to know each other while 
having a drink in the historic RGS Map Room 
and waiting in the long queue. (Photo: S. Knapp) 


Fig. 4. Professor Fortey lecturing in front of the 
ZooBank poster. (Image: E. Michel/NHM Inter- 
active Media Film Unit). 


brought the audience to the edges of their seats. Sir David brought life to stories 
about nomenclature with the addition of adventure, farce, surprise, competition, 
irony, sycophancy and beauty. Both speakers spoke of the combination of honour 
and uncertain implications of having taxa named after them. Perhaps examining too 
closely why a giant flat trilobite, an extinct prickly thing, or the first vertebrate known 
to copulate has been given your name might lead to too many additional, 
unnecessary questions! 

It was clear that, in the mght hands, the topic of nomenclature can be made 
stimulating and entertaining for a general audience. This event was one step in 
increasing public awareness of the importance of the work of the ICZN. The evening 
showed that there is public goodwill towards our work, especially when presented by 
paragons of science communication. 


6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


In addition to the pure enjoyment of the moment, the event yielded other successes. 
Sir David has agreed to become a patron of the ITZN fundraising campaign, joining 
Professor E.O. Wilson in giving high profile support for the work of the Commission. 
A modest profit was realised from the evening, several additional donations were 
received, connections were made with additional potential promoters and one 
audience member was moved to volunteer to run a marathon with charitable 
fundraising on behalf of the ICZN! A professional film was made of the lecture, 
which will be distributed to potential funders and to the wider taxonomic community 
in various ways. Follow-up work using this valuable outreach resource will help the 
ITZN develop a sustainable funding source for the future. 

We thank the speakers for the energy they poured into making this a brilliant 
evening. Support through logistical help or financial contribution was provided by 
the NHM, the Royal Geographical Society, publishers Harper Collins Publishing, 
Random House Publishing, Neal’s Yard Dairy. Slides and images were courtesy of 
Ellinor Michel, Richard Pyle, George McGavin, Vince Smith, ARKive, NHM 
Picture Library, Warren Photographic, Bios/Dominique Halleux. 

The NHM Interactive Media Film Unit coordinated a professional film crew from 
Creation Company and provided staging. Edited clips will be available online and a 
full version of the film will be available by for a minimum donation to the ICZN. 
Information will be available here: iczn.org/content/fundraising lecture. 


ZooBank progress report 


Richard L. Pyle (ZooBank Developer) 


Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A. 
(e-mail: deepreef@bishopmuseum.org) 


Commissioner Richard Pyle attended a meeting in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 
late November 2010 to discuss the data model for the Global Names Usage Bank 
(GNUB), which is planned to serve as the data backbone for ZooBank. Attendees 
included representatives of the three major partners of International Plant Names 
Index (IPNI) — including the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Harvard University, and 
the Australian Plant Names Index (APNI) — as well as representatives for Index 
Fungorum (IF) and the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA). The purpose of the meeting 
was to review, in detail, the data model that had emerged from previous discussions 
involving architects of ZooBank and Index Fungorum, and determine its suitability 
for use in the next generation implementation of IPNI. The meeting was intensive, 
and extremely productive. The consensus data model that emerged from the meeting 
is being implemented now, and will serve as the live data backbone for a revised 
ZooBank website, scheduled for release later this year. Meanwhile, ZooBank 
continues to grow with, as of this writing (15 February 2011), 73,633 registered 
nomenclatural acts, 29,522 registered published works, and 11,955 registered authors. 
This represents an average rate of nearly 100 new name registrations within nearly 33 
published works per month during the past six months. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 7 


BioCode — ICZN Introduction 


To date, the three major Codes of type-based organismal nomenclature have been 
developed with almost an exclusive attention to the needs and history of names for 
their focal set of organisms (animals, plants, prokaryotes). The newly released draft 
of a BioCode, presented here, aims to provide a framework for the existing Codes to 
grow towards each other in the future and promote common rules to minimise 
confusion among names of any organism. It is a collaborative effort by representa- 
tives of each major organismal Code. It is, in this respect, a largely forward-looking 
document. 

The draft BioCode has no effect on the provisions of the current zoological Code 
and should comply with the other type-based (or in draft BioCode terminology, 
‘special’) Codes as well. The intention is that like the existing Codes the BioCode will 
form a voluntary code of practice, and that it will supplement, not replace, them. 
Authors of new animal names are reminded that this draft BioCode has no current 
official standing, and new nomenclatural acts must still conform to the ICZN. The 
implementation of the BioCode remains to be worked out in future drafts and 
through publication of the ‘Annexes’. The mechanism for adoption of the BioCode is 
similarly to be determined in the future. David Hawksworth suggests, in his 
introduction below, that BioCode ‘provisions can be adopted at the appropriate time 
for any particular group of organism,-at any rank or range of ranks. Such adoption 
is to be determined by the appropriately mandated international body if and when 
the necessary structures exist and are operational.’ We look forward to comments 
from the community of zoologists on how we can best implement zoological 
participation in the BioCode. 

Your input in improving the draft will be welcomed. We draw your attention to the 
following areas of the draft BioCode: 

e The principle of coordination to be extended to botanical and bacterial 
nomenclature, Draft BioCode Art. 3.3, in part requiring the introduction of 
additional ranks (profamily between family and subfamily, Art. 24.1 & Note 1, 
progenus between genus and subgenus, Art. 26.2 & Notes, prospecies between 
species and subspecies, Art. 28.3 & Notes). 

Registration of new names and nomenclatural acts, Art. 5.2, 12 & 13. 
Required common languages for description, English or Latin, Art. 7. 
Prevention of inter-regnal homonymy for new names, Art. 18.2. 

‘Adopted Lists’ or Lists of Available Names, Art. 20. 

Flexibility in use of suprageneric terminations for ambiregnal organismal 
names, Art. 23 Note 2,.24 Note 2, 25 Note. 1. 

We will make a platform for comments, formatted such that discussion on each 
Article is continuous, on the ICZN website at this address: http://iczn.org/biocode. 


Ellinor Michel 
Executive Secretary, ICZN 


8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


Introducing the Draft BioCode (2011) 


David L Hawksworth 


Chair, IUBSITUMS International Committee on Bionomenclature; 
Departamento de Biologia Vegetal II, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad 
Complutense de Madrid, Plaza Ramon y Cajal, Madrid 28040, Spain; 
and Department of Botany, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, 
London SW7 5BD,U_K. (e-mail: d.hawksworth@nhm.ac.uk) 


As information on the world’s biota becomes increasingly integrated across different 
groups of organisms, from bacteria and fungi to animals and plants, there is a 
concomitant rising need for a consistent and harmonised approach to the regulation 
of scientific names. The BioCode initiative represents a concerted effort, by biologists 
intimately involved in the operation of the current system of separate codes, to devise 
a unified approach to the future naming of organisms of all kinds. This need has 
become pressing in view of common issues that the separate organismal type-based 
codes now have to address, consequent on the rapid changes taking place in global 
informatics, database architecture, molecular systematics and ecology, and electronic 
publication. 

The Draft BioCode (2011) is most appropriately viewed as a framework over- 
arching the practices of the current series of codes, but which also addresses ways in 
which some of the key issues of current concern in systematics could be handled by 
all codes, for example the registration of new names and electronic publication. In 
addition, it has been drawn up so that its provisions can be adopted at the 
appropriate time for any particular group of organisms, at any rank or range of 
ranks. Such adoption is to be determined by the appropriately mandated inter- 
national body if and when the necessary structures exist and are operational. 

The advantages of moving towards a more harmonised system were realised at a 
Systematics Association-sponsored symposium held at the Third International 
Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (ICSEB IJ) in Brighton (U.K.) in 
1985. IUBS then established a standing committee on biological nomenclature 
after debates at the 22nd IUBS General Assembly in Budapest (Hungary) later that 
year. In 1988, following discussions during the XIV International Botanical Congress 
in Berlin (Germany) in 1987, and with the support of IUBS and the International 
Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT), an ad hoc group including representatives 
of all five representatives of the committees in charge of the five current codes met 
in Kew (U.K.) to consider a common approach towards the protection of names 
then in use. Following from the report of that meeting, further meetings of the 
ad hoc group, and discussions and debates at the 23rd IUBS General Assembly in 
Canberra (Australia) in 1988 and ICSEB IV at College Park (Maryland, U.S.A) 
in 1989, led to a major conference on Improving the Stability of Names being 
convened in Kew in 1991 — with the support of IUBS, IAPT and the Systematics 
Association. Later in 1991, the 24th IUBS General Assembly, meeting in Amsterdam 
(Netherlands), passed a resolution to encourage harmonisation between the various 
codes. An exploratory meeting on harmonisation between the codes was then 
convened in Egham (U.K.) in 1994; this was held under the auspices of IUBS, [UMS 
(International Union of Microbiological Societies) and IAPT with support from 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 9 


CAB International, the Linnean Society of London, and the Royal Society of 
London. It set an agenda for future action in biological nomenclature, including the 
establishment of what became the IUBS/IUMS International Committee on Bio- 
nomenclature (ICB) following the 25th IUBS General Assembly in Paris (France) 
later in 1994. The ICB addressed several issues of concern when it met in Egham the 
following year, but also generated a first draft of a prospective International code of 
bionomenclature. That document was developed and presented at ICSEB V in 
Budapest in 1996, as the Draft BioCode: the prospective international rules for the 
scientific naming of organisms. Having taken note of debates during that congress, the 
ICB met again at Egham in 1997 and then issued a revision, the Draft BioCode 
(1997). 

The BioCode was, from the first, seen as something to deal with names proposed 
in the future, while the existing separate codes continued to deal with those of the 
past. It was envisaged as operating in parallel while agreed lists of names were 
developed by, for example, phylum, order or family. Whereas some minor changes 
have been effected in the existing codes towards improved harmonisation since that 
time, an agreed list of names and a mechanism for compulsory registration of new 
names continued to be available only in bacteriology. However, as the 21st century 
commenced, the rapid evolution of databases meant that the production of lists on 
a group basis became more practical, and a need for a timely and low-cost system of 
cataloguing newly proposed names emerged in botany, mycology and zoology. In 
addition, changing classifications as a result of molecular phylogenetic studies meant 
that the problems of groups potentially being treated under different codes, or 
meriting transfer from one to another, grew. Against this background, the ICB 
organised a meeting to consider the issues surrounding the mandatory registration of 
new scientific names in the rooms of the Linnean Society of London (U.K.) in 2007, 
and a workshop on Tailoring Biological Nomenclature to User Needs at the Natural 
History Museum in London in 2009. As a consequence of these discussions, the 30th 
IUBS General Assembly in Cape Town (South Africa) later that year decided that it 
was time to revisit the prospect of a BioCode. The ICB then convened a workshop at 
the Botanischer Garten und Botanischer Museum in Berlin in October 2010 to 
produce an update of the Draft BioCode (1997) to allow for subsequent developments 
in the different codes, and also the possibilities afforded by new technologies. That 
document, the Draft BioCode (2011), is presented here as a basis for further 
consideration during BioSystematics Berlin 2011 (which incorporates ICSEB VII). 

In presenting the Draft BioCode (2011), I wish to thank the past and current 
members of the ICB, and also others that have participated in the various workshops, 
debates and symposia on this issue over the last 25 years. Their sustained and 
insightful comments are now crystallising into a vision for a pragmatic nomenclatural 
system, tailored to the electronic and molecular age, and in which biologists, as a 
whole, can have confidence. 


10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


Draft BioCode (2011): Principles and Rules Regulating the Naming of 
Organisms 


Prepared and edited by W. Greuter’, G. Garrity’, D.L. Hawksworth’, 
R. Jahn*, P. Kirk’, S. Knapp®, J. McNeill’, E. Michel®, D.J. Patterson’, 
R. Pyle’? & BJ. Tindall” on behalf of the IUBSITUMS International 
Committee for Bionomenclature (ICB). 


‘Herbarium Mediterraneum, clo Orto Botanico, Via Lincoln 2/A, 

I-90123 Palermo, Italy; and Botanischer Garten & Botanisches Museum 
Berlin-Dahlem, Free University of Berlin, Kénigin-Luise-Str. 6—8, D-14195 
Berlin, Germany (e-mail: w.greuter@bgbm.org) 


°6162 Biomedical & Physical Sciences Bldg., Michigan State University, 
East Lansing, MI 48824-4320, U.S.A. (e-mail: garrity@msu.edu) 


> Departamento de Biologia Vegetal I, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad 
Complutense de Madrid, Plaza Ramon y Cajal, Madrid 28040, Spain and 
Department of Botany, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London 
SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: d.hawksworth@nhm.ac.uk) 

“Botanischer Garten & Botanisches Museum Berlin-Dahlem, Free University 
of Berlin, Konigin-Luise-Str. 6-8, D-14195 Berlin, Germany 

(e-mail: r.jahn@bgbm.org) 

°CAB International, Bakeham Lane, Egham, Surrey TW20 9TY, U.K. 
(e-mail: p.kirk@cabi.org) 

°Department of Botany, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, 
London SW7 5BD, U_K. (e-mail: s.knapp@nhm.ac.uk) 

’Royal Botanic Garden, 20A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, 
Scotland, U_K. (e-mail: j.mcneill@rbge.ac.uk) 

SICZN Secretariat, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, 

London SW7 SBD, U_K. (e-mail: iczn-em@nhm.ac.uk) 

’ Biodiversity Informatics, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, 
MA 02543, U.S.A. (e-mail: dpatterson@mbl.edu) 

'° Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice St., 
Honolulu, HI 96817, U.S.A. (e-mail: deepreef@bishopmuseum.org) 

'' Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH, 
Mascheroder Weg 1b, D-38124 Braunschweig, Germany 

(e-mail: bti@dsmz.de) 


This work is also published in Bionomina 1 (2011) and Taxon 60 (2011) to ensure 
wide dissemination among systematists as a whole. 


PREAMBLE 

1. Biology requires a precise, coherent and simple system for the naming of 
organisms used internationally, dealing both with the nomenclatural terms and with 
the scientific names that are applied to the individual taxonomic groups of organisms 
(taxa, singular taxon). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 11 


2. The provisions of this BioCode shall apply to names of all kinds of organisms, 
whether eukaryotic or prokaryotic, fossil or non-fossil, and of fossil traces of 
organism (ichnotaxa), that are established (i.e. validly published or made available) 
and shall govern the choice when names compete among themselves or with earlier 
names. They shall also, and without limitation of date, provide for the establishment 
of co-ordinate names within rank groups, for the protection of names, as well as for 
their correct form. 

3. Established names of organisms that are not yet covered by Adopted Lists of 
Protected Names are in all other respects (including their subsequent typification) 
governed by the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (here: ‘bacteriological 
Code’), the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (‘botanical Code’) or the 
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (‘zoological Code’) hereafter jointly 
called the “Special Codes’, depending on the accepted taxonomic position of their type. 

4. Separate rules for organismal nomenclature, contained in the PhyloCode, are 
being established by analogy to those in the Special Codes but are based on different 
principles. Any names that may be proposed under the PhyloCode have no standing 
under the BioCode. 

5. Separate rules for virus nomenclature, contained in The International Code of Virus 
Classification and Nomenclature (virological Code) have been established in conformity 
with Principles I and V of this Code and with the thrust of many of its rules. Because 
names of virus species do not have the binominal form required under this Code, and 
names of virus taxa in other recognised ranks have mandatory terminations according 
to rank, provisions of the BioCode proscribing these terminations for non-virus taxa 
ensure that the names of viruses and other organisms cannot conflict. 

6. The nomenclature of cultivated plants follows the provisions of this Code, in so 
far as these provisions are applicable, but the naming of distinguishable groups of 
plants whose origin or selection is primarily due to intentional human actions follows 
the supplementary provisions contained in the International Code of Nomenclature 
for Cultivated Plants (‘cultivated plant Code’). 

7. The nomenclature of infraspecific taxa (pathovars) of plant pathogenic bacteria 
is regulated by a set of International Standards for Naming Pathovars of Phytopatho- 
genic Bacteria (‘plant pathogen Standards’). 


DIVISION I. PRINCIPLES 
Principle I 


The BioCode governs the formation and choice of scientific names of taxa but not the 
circumscription, position, or rank of the taxa themselves. Nothing in this Code may 
be construed to restrict the freedom of taxonomic action. 


Principle II 

Scientific nomenclature of organisms builds upon the Linnaean system of binary 
names (binomina) for species. 

Principle III 


The application of names of taxa is determined by means of name-bearing types 
(hereafter referred to as types), although this principle does not apply to certain 
names at supra-familial ranks (see Art. 23.1(b)). 


12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


Principle IV 


The nomenclature of a taxon is based upon priority (precedence by date) of 
publication, although application of this principle is not mandatory at all ranks (Art. 
Oy: 


Principle V 


Each taxon in the family group, genus group or species group with a particular 
circumscription, position, and rank has only one accepted name, except as may be 
specified in a Special Code. 


Principle VI 
Scientific names of taxa are treated as Latin, regardless of their derivation. 


Principle VII 


The name as applied to a taxon is not to be changed without sufficient reason, based 
either on further taxonomic studies or on the necessity of giving up a name that is 
contrary to the Rules of nomenclature. 


Principle VIII 


In the absence of a relevant rule or where the consequences of rules are doubtful, 
established custom is followed (see also Div. HI.5.). 


Principle IX 


The rules of nomenclature are retroactive, subject to any specified limitations (see 
also Pre. 2-3). 


DIVISION I. RULES 
CHAPTER I. TAXA AND RANKS 


Article 1 

1.1. Every individual organism is treated as belonging to an indefinite number of 
taxa of consecutively subordinate rank. 

1.2. Taxa normally consist of whole organisms in all their life stages, irrespective 
of the nature of the corresponding name-bearing types. For practical reasons, in 
some categories of organisms taxa are recognised and can be named that correspond 
only to parts of organisms, or to definite stages of their life history, or result from 
their activity. Such taxa are termed parataxa. This Code provides, in Art. 31, for 
names of parataxa of specified categories. 


Article 2 
2.1. The primary ranks of taxa in descending sequence are: kingdom, phylum, class, 
order, family, genus, and species. 


Article 3 

3.1. Secondary ranks of taxa, when required, include in descending sequence: 
domain above kingdom, tribe between family and genus, section and series between 
genus and species, and variety and form below species. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 13 


3.2. Should an even greater number of ranks of taxa be desired, the terms for these 
are made by adding the prefixes super-, pro-, or sub- (sub- being below pro-) to 
non-prefixed terms denoting principal or secondary ranks. 

Ex. 1. Superfamilies, progenera or subspecies are permitted but not subprospecies 
or prosubspecies. 

3.3. Throughout this BioCode, the following rank groups are recognised: ‘supra- 
familial ranks’ (all ranks above the family group); ‘family-group ranks’ (the ranks of 
family and profamily); ‘infrafamilial ranks’ (all ranks between family group and 
genus group); “genus-group ranks’ (the ranks of genus and progenus); ‘infrageneric 
ranks’ (all ranks between genus group and species group); ‘species-group ranks’ (the 
ranks of species and prospecies); and “infraspecific ranks’ (any rank below the species 
group). 

Note J. Further ranks may be intercalated or added, but designations of taxa in 
such ranks are not governed by this BioCode. 


Recommendation 3A 
3A.1. The establishment of new names of infraspecific taxa is strongly discouraged, 
except in groups in which they are used traditionally. 


CHAPTER IT. NAMES (GENERAL PROVISIONS) 
SECTION 1. STATUS | 


Article 4 

4.1. Established names are those that comply with the requirements of Art. 7-11 
(see also Art. 33.2) or that, prior to the starting date defined in those Articles, were 
validly published or became available under the relevant Special Code. 

4.2. In this Code, unless otherwise indicated, the word ‘name’ means an established 
name, whether it be acceptable or unacceptable (see Art. 19). 

4.3. Acceptable names are established names that are in accordance with the rules, 
that is, are neither unacceptable under Art. 18 nor illegitimate under the relevant 
Special Code. 

4.4. In the family group, genus group, or species group, the accepted name of a 
taxon with a particular circumscription, position, and rank is the acceptable name 
which must be adopted for it under the rules (see Art. 19). 

Note 1. In ranks not belonging to the family group, genus group, or species group, 
any established name of a taxon adopted by a particular author is an accepted name 
(see Art. 19.7). 

4.5. The name of a taxon consisting of the name of a genus combined with one 
epithet is a binomen, the name of a species combined with a second epithet is a 
trinomen; binomina or trinomina are combinations. 


Recommendation 4A 

4A.1 In order to denote a clear distinction between scientific names of organisms 
and designations in common language, scientific names of all ranks should appear in 
the same distinctive, and preferably italic, type. 


14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


SECTION 2. ESTABLISHMENT 
Article 5 

5.1. In order to be established, a name must be (a) new, (b) have the form required 
by Art. 23-31, and (c) comply with the special provisions of Art. 7-11. 

5.2. On or after the relevant future date to be determined (Div.III.4), case by case, 
for the various categories of organisms, names, and nomenclatural acts, any name of 
a new taxon, replacement name, or new combination, and any nomenclatural act 
(Art. 16.6, 17.4, 18.8 & 19.5), must be registered in order to be established (see Art. 
12). 

Note 1. Registration does not in itself grant establishment. Upon request or by 
oversight, names and nomenclatural acts may be registered even though they fail to 
fulfil all establishment requirements. In such cases, an apposite note will be added to 
the registration entry (see Art. 13.1). 

Note 2. No previous formal publication is required for registration, nor does such 
publication affect the date or the form and attributes of a registered name. 


Recommendation 5A 

5A.1. Authors who submit names or nomenclatural acts for registration that have 
not previously been formally published should expedite formal publication as soon as 
possible after registration, and should endeavour to provide a reference to that 
prospective publication in their registration submission. 

5A.2 Authors should register new names and nomenclatural acts on acceptance of 
the corresponding text for formal publication. 

5A.3. In the subsequent formal publication of a new taxon of which the name has 
already been registered, or of new nomenclatural acts, the registration parameters 
(number, date) should be mentioned, and the spelling and relevant attributes (e.g. 
type, validating description) of the name should be given exactly as registered. 


Article 6 

6.1. The establishment of any family-group name is deemed to automatically 
establish co-ordinate names at the other ranks of the family-group. The co-ordinate 
names are formed from the same generic name and have the same authorship and 
date. 

6.2. All subfamily names established under the zoological Code are, under the 
BioCode, treated as simultaneously established names of profamilies (Art. 3.2; see 
also Art. 24 Note 1). 

Note I. Names of subfamilies established under the botanical or bacteriological 
Code maintain the former subfamily termination -oideae (Art. 25.1) and are 
intermediate in rank between profamily and tribe (Art. 3.2). 

6.3. The establishment of any genus-group name is deemed to automatically 
establish an identical co-ordinate name at the other rank of the genus group. The 
co-ordinate names have the same type, authorship and date. 

6.4. All names of subgenera established under the zoological Code are, under the 
BioCode, treated as simultaneously established names of progenera (Art. 3.2; see also 
Art. 26 Note 1). 

Note 2. Names of subgenera (subgen.) have the same form as those of other 
infrageneric taxa, for instance, sections (Art. 27), and are intermediate in rank 
between progenus and section (Art. 3.2). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 15 


6.5. The establishment of any species-group name is deemed to automatically 
establish a co-ordinate name at the other rank of the species group. The co-ordinate 
names have identical final epithets, the same type, authorship and date. 

6.6. All names of subspecies established under the zoological Code are, under the 
BioCode, treated as simultaneously established names of prospecies (Art. 3.2; see also 
Art. 28 Note 1). 

Note 3. Names of subspecies (subsp.) have the same form as those of other 
infraspecific taxa, for instance, varieties (Art. 29), and are intermediate in rank 
between prospecies and variety (Art. 3.2). 


Article 7 

7.1. On or after a future date to be determined (Div. HI.4) a name of a new taxon, 
in order to be established, must be accompanied by a Latin or English description of 
the taxon, or by a direct and unambiguous bibliographic reference to a previously 
published Latin or English description that applies to the taxon at a rank belonging 
to the same rank group (Art. 3.3). 

7.2. Art. 7.1 notwithstanding, a direct and unambiguous bibliographic reference to 
a previously published Latin or English description of an infrafamilial, infrageneric, 
or infraspecific taxon is sufficient, under the botanical Code, to establish a name of a 
new taxon in the rank of family-group, genus-group, or species-group, respectively, 
and vice versa (see also Art. 6). 


Article 8 

8.1. On or after a future date to be determined (Div. III.4) a new combination or 
a replacement name for a previously established name, in order to be established, 
must be accompanied by a direct and unambiguous bibliographic reference to its 
basionym (name-bringing or epithet-bringing synonym) or replaced name, its author 
and place of original publication. 

8.2. In order to be direct and unambiguous, a bibliographic reference must include 
the page or plate reference (where applicable) and year (in so far as known); for 
publications with a consecutive pagination, the page reference is a reference to the 
page or pages on which the basionym was published or on which the protologue is 
printed, but not to the pagination of the whole publication unless it is coextensive 
with that of the protologue. 

Note J. When the basionym or replaced name is a name established by registration, 
citation of that name with its registration parameters (number, date) is a direct and 
unambiguous reference. 

8.3. The basionym or replaced name may be of a different rank from the new 
combination or replacement name, but only within a single rank group (as defined in 
Art. 3.3). 

&.4. Art. 8.3 notwithstanding, names of infrafamilial, infrageneric, or infraspecific 
taxa established under the botanical Code can serve as basionyms or replaced names 
for new combinations or replacement names in the ranks of family-group, genus- 
group, Or species-group, respectively, and vice versa (see also Art. 6). 


Article 9 
9.1. On or after a future date to be determined (Div. III.4) a name of a new taxon 
of the rank of genus or below, in order to be established, must be accompanied by the 


16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


designation of its type (see Art. 14-17). Designation of the type must include one of 
the words ‘holotype’ (holotypus) or ‘type’ (typus), or the corresponding abbreviation, 
and, unless the type is a published illustration, a specification of the institution or 
collection in which it is conserved. 


Article 10 

10.1. On or after a future date to be determined (Div. III.4) a name of a new fossil 
botanical species or subordinate taxon, in order to be established, must be ac- 
companied by an illustration or figure showing diagnostic characters, in addition to 
the description or diagnosis, or by a bibliographic reference to a previously published 
illustration or figure. This requirement also applies to names of new non-fossil algal 
taxa at these ranks. 


Recommendation 10A 

10A.1 Provision of an illustration or figure showing diagnostic characters is 
recommended for all new taxa, especially for those of zoological fossils as well as 
ambiregnal and any microscopic organisms. [Ambiregnal organisms are those that 
are treated under more than one Special Code by different taxonomists]. 


Article 11 
11.1. Only if the corresponding genus or species name is established can the name 
of a subordinate taxon be established (but see Art. 30.2). 


SECTION 3. REGISTRATION 


Article 12 

12.1. Registration as mandated by Art. 5.2 is effected (a) by submitting a name, 
with all necessary details (Art. 7-11), or by specifying a nomenclatural act (Art. 16.6, 
17.4, 18.8 or 19.5), authored by at least one named person, either in print or in an 
agreed digital format, to the appropriate Registering Centre (see Annex A and Div. 
IlI.8 [The Annexes and Div. III.8 will be prepared at later dates, and are not, 
therefore, included in this Draft BioCode]); and (b), complying with the technical 
requirements of the registering centre. 

12.2. Registration will be granted to all submitted names that fulfil these conditions 
as well as the requirements of Art. 7-11. The procedures are specified in Annex A. 

Note 1. Co-ordinate names within a rank group need not be submitted separately. 

12.3. The registering centres are empowered to register non-submitted items placed 
in the public domain that meet the requirements of Art. 7-11 for establishment. They 
are entitled to do so when the following conditions obtain: (a) new names and 
nomenclatural acts are clearly identified as such; (b) the authors are named persons; 
and (c) there is nothing to indicate that new names and nomenclatural acts are not 
definitely accepted by their author, nor is there any disclaimer to the effect that they 
are not to be considered as published for nomenclatural purposes. 

12.4. Under Art. 5.2, the date of establishment of a new name or of a nomen- 
clatural act is that of its registration, which is the moment in which the relevant 
information becomes generally available by being placed on a global electronic 
communication network by the competent registering centre, or published in the 
relevant official medium. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 b7 


Article 13 

13.1. Entries of registered names and nomenclatural acts cannot be deleted (but see 
Art. 13.2). However, factual omissions and errors, particularly those that result in 
non-establishment, will be mentioned in notes added to the registration entry. 
Subsequently added notes will be dated. Whenever possible, reference will be made 
to the actual (prior or subsequent) place and date of establishment. 

Ex. 1. When the earlier establishment of a supposedly new combination has been 
overlooked, the entry is maintained but citation of the actual place of establishment 
is added. 

Ex. 2. If the purported basionym of an intended new combination is not an 
established name, the entry is maintained with a note on failed establishment of the 
combination. 

Ex. 3. When the earlier publication of a supposedly new type designation has been 
overlooked, the entry is maintained but a reference to the earlier designation is added, 
and the previously designated name-bearing type, when it differs, is specified. 


SECTION 4. TYPIFICATION 


Article 14 

14.1. The application of names of taxa of the rank of superfamily or below, and of 
those names of taxa in the higher ranks that are ultimately based on generic names, 
is determined by means of types (name-bearing types). The unit formed by the name 
and its type is referred to as the nominal taxon. 

14.2. A type is that element to which the name of a taxon is permanently attached, 
whether it be an accepted name or not. 

14.3. A new name based on a previously published acceptable name, for instance, 
as a new combination or as a replacement for an older name (see Art. 8), is typified 
by the type of the older name. 


Article 15 
15.1. The nature of types of names of new taxa is as defined in the relevant Special 
Code. 


Article 16 

16.1. When the name of a species or subordinate taxon has no acceptable 
designated type, a type may be designated. Designation must comply with the rules 
in the relevant Special Code. 

16.2. When no single type was designated for the name of a new taxon, a lectotype 
may be designated. 

16.3. If a type specimen is lost or destroyed, or is unavailable for consultation for 
an indefinite period of time, a neotype may be designated to serve as type so long as 
the original type is unavailable or missing. 

16.4. When a type specimen contains parts belonging to more than one taxon, a 
part of it may be designated as type so as to fix the application of the name. 

16.5. When a type cannot be critically identified for purposes of the precise 
application of the name of a taxon, and it is desirable to fix that application, an 
epitype may be designated. Suitability of a designated epitype may be challenged (see 
Div. II.9). 


18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


16.6. In order to be established, on and after the relevant starting date for 
mandatory registration (Art. 5.2), type designations as provided for in Art. 16.1—5 
must be registered (Art. 5.1; see also Art. 12). 


Article 17 

17.1. The type of a name of a supraspecific taxon of generic or lower rank is a 
nominal species. 

17.2. The type of a name of a suprageneric taxon the name of which is derived from 
a generic name is the nominal genus from which it is derived. 

17.3. When the name of a supraspecific taxon has no acceptable designated type, 
a type may be designated. Designation must comply with the rules in the relevant 
Special Code. 

17.4. In order to be established, on and after the relevant starting date for 
mandatory registration (Art. 5.2), type designations as provided for in Art. 17.3 must 
be registered (Art. 5.1; see also Art. 12). 


SECTION 5. HOMONYMY 


Article 18 

15.1. Homonyms are identically spelled names based on different types. Rank 
designators are disregarded for the assessment of homonymy, so that names in 
different ranks can nevertheless be homonyms. 

18.2. A family-group, genus-group or species-group name established on or after 
a future date to be determined (Div. III.3), unless conserved (Art. 21) or otherwise 
protected, is unacceptable if it is a later homonym, that is, if it, or one of its 
co-ordinate names, is spelled exactly like a name based on a different type that was 
previously established for a taxon in the same rank (see also Art. 18.6). 

18.3. Two different homonyms may both be acceptable if they were published 
under different Special Codes prior to the date determined in Art. 18.2. However, of 
different homonyms published under the same Special Code, all but the earliest one 
are unacceptable unless conserved or protected. 

Note J. In the ranks of the species group, a binomen or trinomen that is already 
established cannot be displaced by transfer of the epithet [Here and elsewhere in this 
Code, the phrase ‘final epithet’ refers to the last epithet in sequence in any particular 
combination, in any rank lower than genus] of an earlier acceptable name whose final 
epithet would otherwise have to be adopted under Art. 19.4. In such cases, the 
resultant combination would be unacceptable as a later homonym (see also Rec. 18A). 

18.4. A name of an infrageneric taxon is unacceptable, irrespective of its date, if it 
has the generic name as its epithet but is based on a different type (but see Rec. 
18B.1). 

18.5. A name of an infraspecific taxon is unacceptable, irrespective of its date, if it 
has the same final epithet as the species name but is based on a different type (but see 
Rec. 18B.2). 

18.6. When two or more species-group names based on different types are so 
similar that they are likely to be confused (parahomonyms) they are treated as 
homonyms. 

Note I. This provision does not apply to genus-group names, except as provided by 
Art. 18.7. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 19 


18.7. When it is doubtful whether species-group or genus-group names are 
parahomonyms (see Div. III.9) they may be submitted to the appropriate commit- 
tee(s) (Div. III.9) to obtain a binding decision. 

18.8. When two or more homonyms have the same date, precedence between them 
is established in conformity with the relevant Special Code. On or after the relevant 
starting date for mandatory registration (Art. 5.2), any new choice between homo- 
nyms of the same date must be registered (Art. 12) in order to take effect. 


Recommendation 18A 

18A.1. Later homonyms which, being acceptable under the relevant Special Code, 
are in current use should not be abandoned but proposed for conservation (Art. 21). 

18A.2. Prior to the date determined in Art. 18.2, authors should refrain from 
establishing new names that are homonyms of acceptable names established under a 
different Special Code. 

18A.3. In choosing between homonyms in ranks where the principle of priority is 
not mandatory, authors should nevertheless follow that principle, unless the result 
would be nomenclaturally disruptive and contrary to established tradition. 


Recommendation 18B 

18B.1. When establishing the name of a new progenus, authors should refrain from 
using the epithet of a name previously established for an infrageneric taxon of the 
same genus, based on a different type. 

18B.2. When establishing the name of a new prospecies, authors should refrain 
from using the epithet of a name previously established for an infraspecific taxon of 
the same species, based on a different type. 


SECTION 6. PRECEDENCE 


Article 19 

19.1. For purposes of priority the date of a name is either the date attributed to it 
in an Adopted List of Protected Names (Art. 20) or, for unlisted names established 
prior to the relevant starting date for mandatory registration (Art. 5.2), the date on 
which it was validly published or became available under the relevant Special Code, 
or the date on which it was established, on or after that same date, under the 
BioCode. Limitations of priority that under the Special Codes affect names in certain 
groups or of certain categories, even if not provided for in the BioCode, still apply. 

19.2. Competing names are acceptable names with types that belong to the same 
taxon. At family-group, genus-group and species-group ranks, the choice between 
competing names of the same rank is governed by the principle of priority of 
establishment. 

Note 1. Under the principle of co-ordinate status (Art. 6), co-ordinate names in the 
other rank of the same rank group are automatically established and accordingly take 
the same date in both ranks of the group. 

19.3. For any taxon in one of the ranks of the family or genus group, the accepted 
name is the earliest acceptable one that competes at that rank, except in cases of 
limitation of precedence under Art. 20-24, or where Art. 31 applies. 

19.4. For any species-group taxon, the accepted name is the combination of the 
final epithet of the earliest acceptable name that competes at that rank, with the 


20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


accepted name of the genus or species to which it is assigned, except (a) in cases of 
limitation of precedence under Art. 20-24, or (b) if the resulting combination cannot 
become established under Art. 28.2, or (c) would be unacceptable as a later homonym 
as defined in Art. 18, or (d) if Art. 31 rules that a different combination be used. 

19.5. When, for any taxon of the family group, genus group or species group, a 
choice is possible between acceptable names of equal date, or between final epithets 
of acceptable names of equal date, the first such choice to be published before the 
relevant starting date for mandatory registration (Art. 5.2) in conformity with the 
relevant Special Code, or if there is none, the first registered choice under the Bio Code 
(Art. 12) establishes the precedence of the chosen name, and of any acceptable 
combination with the same type and final epithet at that rank, over the other 
competing name(s). 
~ 19.6. Names of organisms (animals and algae excepted) based on a non-fossil type 
take precedence over names of the same rank based on a fossil (or subfossil) type (see 
also Art. 31.2). 

19.7. The principle of priority is not mandatory for names of taxa not belonging to 
the family group, genus group or species group. 


Recommendation 19A 

19A.1. Authors should follow the principle of priority also when it is not 
mandatory, unless the result would be nomenclaturally disruptive and contrary to 
established tradition. | 


Article 20 

20.1. In order to stabilise the nomenclatural status of names in current use, and to 
prevent their being displaced by names no longer in use, lists of names and their 
attributes may, after apposite public review, be submitted to the ICB for adoption 
(see Div. III.9). 

Ex. 1. The Approved Lists of Bacterial Names (see Rule 24a of the bacteriological 
Code) are, for all events and purposes, equivalent to the Adopted Lists provided for 
in the BioCode. 

Ex. 2. The Lists of Available Names in Zoology (see Art. 79 of the zoological Code) 
are, for all events and purposes, equivalent to the Adopted Lists provided for in the 
Bio Code. 

Ex. 3. The list of Names in Current Use in the Trichocomaceae (fungi) to which 
special status has been granted by the 1993 International Botanical Congress 
(Regnum Veg. 128: 13-57. 1993; see the Tokyo edition of the botanical Code, p. x) 
is, for all events and purposes, equivalent to an Adopted List as provided for in the 
Bio Code. 

20.2. Once a list has been adopted, all listed names and their co-ordinate names are 
protected. A protected name is treated as if conserved against earlier homonyms and 
unlisted competing names; it is treated as established in the place and on the date 
cited in the list; and its type, when listed, its spelling and, if specified, its gender are 
treated as if conserved. 

20.3. Protection can, for individual lists, be restricted with respect to the options set 
out in Art. 20.2, and particular entries on a list can be exempted from protection. 
Such restrictions and exceptions are to be specified. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 21 


20.4. Once a list has been adopted, entries can be added, modified or removed only 
by the mechanisms of conservation or suppression of names (Art. 21—23). Specified 
restrictions and exceptions can be waived or modified only upon recommendation of 
the appropriate committee. 

20.5. An earlier homonym of a protected name does not lose its status of an 
established name, but the precedence of the two homonyms is inverted by protection. 

20.6. When, for a taxon of the family or genus group, two or more protected names 
compete, Art. 19.3 governs the choice of name (see also Art. 20.9). 

20.7. When, for a taxon of the species group, two or more protected names and/or 
two or more names with the same final epithet and type as a protected name compete, 
Art. 19.4 governs the choice of name. 

20.8. The date of protection does not affect the date of a protected name, which is 
the date of its establishment (Art. 19.1). 

20.9. A name which is neither protected nor has the same type and final epithet as 
a protected name in the same rank may not be applied to a taxon that includes the 
type of a protected name in that rank unless the final epithet of the latter cannot be 
used in the required combination (see Art. 19.4(b-c)). 

20.10. Conservation and suppression (Art. 21) override protection. 


Article 21 

21.]. Conservation or suppression of names, nomenclatural acts or publications 
can suspend the application of the rules to names of taxa of the family group, genus 
group and species group. Conservation also permits the amendment of Adopted 
Protected List of names (Art. 20). 

21.2. Provisions for the conservation and suppression of names, and mechanisms 
for implementing them, are detailed in the Special Codes (see Div. III.9). 


Article 22 

22.1. A name that has been widely and persistently used for a taxon or taxa not 
including its type is not to be used in a sense that conflicts with current usage unless 
and until a proposal to deal with it under Art. 21 has been submitted and rejected. 


CHAPTER III. RANK GROUPS AND THEIR NAMES 
SECTION 1. TAXA ABOVE THE RANK OF FAMILY 


Article 23 

23.1. Names of taxa above the rank of family are treated as nouns in the plural and 
are written with a capital initial letter. They may be either (a) typified names (see Art. 
14.1) that are formed by adding a termination denoting their rank to the genitive 
singular stem of a generic name, or exceptionally to the whole name; or (b) typeless 
(‘descriptive’) names that are formed differently, apply to taxa defined by circum- 
scription, and may be used unchanged at different ranks. 

23.2. For typified names, the name of a subphylum that includes the type of the 
accepted name of a phylum, the name of a subclass that includes the type of 
the accepted name of a class, or the name of a suborder that includes the type of the 
accepted name of an order, are to be based on the same type. 

23.3. The typified name of a phylum or subphylum is formed from the same generic 
name as an acceptable name of an included class. The phylum name termination is 


p25) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


-mycota for fungi, -phyta for other botanical taxa, and -zoa for animals. The 
subphylum name termination is -mycotina for fungi, -phytina for other botanical 
taxa, and -zoina for animals. 

23.4. The typified name of a class or subclass is formed from the same generic name 
as an acceptable name of an included order. The class name termination is -mycetes 
for fungi, -phyceae for algae, and -opsida for other botanical taxa and all animals. 
The subclass name termination is -mycetidae for fungi, -phycidae for algae, -idae for 
other botanical taxa, and -zoidae for animals. 

23.5. The typified name of an order, suborder, or superfamily is formed from the 
same generic name as an acceptable name of an included family. For all groups, 
the order name termination is -a/es, the suborder name termination -ineae, and the 
superfamily name termination -oidea. 

23.6. The name of a taxon above the rank of family may not have the termination 
-virinae, -virales, or -viridae, because these terminations are reserved for the names of 
viral taxa (see Pre. 4). 

Note I. Names of taxa above the rank of family that do not conform to the 
standards set out in Art. 23.3-23.6 are acceptable as descriptive names (Art. 
23.1(b)). 

23.7. When a typified suprafamilial name is published with a Latin termination not 
agreeing with the provisions of this Article, the termination is changed to accord with 
it, but the name retains its authorship and date. 

Note 2. For suprafamilial names of ambiregnal taxa (Rec. 10A, footnote), the 
alternative use of the terminations -mycota or -phyta and -zoa (for phyla), -mycotina 
or -phytina and -zoina (for subphyla), -mycetes or -phyceae and -opsida (for classes), 
-mycetidae or -phycidae and -zoidae (for subclasses) is authorised, irrespective of the 
Special Code otherwise used by a given author. 


Recommendation 23A 
23A.1. The terminations provided in Art. 23.3-23.5 should not be used in typeless, 
descriptive names of any rank above family. 


SECTION 2. FAMILY-GROUP TAXA AND INFRAFAMILIAL TAXA 


Article 24 

24.1. Family-group names are treated as nouns in the plural and are written with 
a capital initial letter. They are formed by adding a termination denoting rank to the 
genitive singular stem of a generic name, or to the whole name if necessary to avoid 
homonymy. 

The family name termination is -aceae for all botanical and bacteriological taxa, 
-idae for zoological taxa. 

The profamily name termination is -idieae for all botanical and bacteriological 
taxa, -inae for zoological taxa. 

Note I. Names of subfamilies established under the zoological Code are, under the 
Bio Code, treated as simultaneously established names of profamilies (Art. 6.2). For 
practical purposes, subfamily and profamily are, for these names, treated as one and 
the same rank. However, names of subfamilies established under the botanical or 
bacteriological Code are not equivalent to names of profamilies and remain outside 
the family-group ranks. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 ae 


24.2. The name of a family may not have the termination -viridae, and the name of 
a profamily may not have the termination -virinae, because these terminations are 
reserved for the names of viral taxa (see Pre. 4). 

24.3. When a name is published with a Latin termination not agreeing with the 
provisions of this Article, the termination is changed to accord with it, but the name 
retains its authorship and date. 

Note 2. For family-group names of ambiregnal taxa (Rec. 10A, footnote), the 
alternative use of the terminations -aceae and -idae (for families), -idieae and -inae 
(for profamilies) is authorised. irrespective of the Special Code otherwise used by a 
given author. 


Article 25 

25.1 The name of an infrafamilial taxon is a noun in the plural and is written with 
a capital initial letter. It is formed in the same way as a name of a family-group taxon, 
but by adding a different termination to denote rank: 

The subfamily name termination is -oideae for all botanical and bacteriological 
taxa, -inae for zoological taxa. 

The tribe name termination is -eae for all botanical and bacteriological taxa, -ini 
for zoological taxa. 

The subtribe name termination is -inae for all botanical and bacteriological taxa, 
-ina for zoological taxa. 

25.2. The name of an infrafamilial taxon that includes the type of the accepted 
name of the family is to be based on the same type as the family name. 

25.3. The name of a subtribe may not have the termination -virinae, which is 
reserved for the names of viral taxa (see Pre. 4). 

25.4. When a name is published with a Latin termination not agreeing with the 
provisions of this Article, the termination is changed to accord with it, but the name 
retains its authorship and date. 

Note J. For infrafamilial names of ambiregnal taxa (Rec. 10A, footnote), the 
alternative use of the terminations -oideae and -inae (for subfamilies), -eae and -ini 
(for tribes), -inae and -ina (for subtribes) is authorised, irrespective of the Special 
Code otherwise used by a given author. 


SECTION 3. GENUS-GROUP TAXA AND INFRAGENERIC TAXA 


Article 26 

26.1. The name of a genus is a noun in the singular, or a single word treated as 
such, and is written with a capital initial letter. It may not have the termination -virus, 
which is reserved for the names of viral genera (see Pre. 4). 

26.2. The name of an progenus has the same form as a generic name and stands on 
its own. However, it may not be used as the first term in a binomen or trinomen. It 
may be interpolated in parentheses between the terms of a binomen, optionally 
preceded by the rank designator ‘progenus’ (progen.), but is not for nomenclatural 
purposes a part of that binomen. 

Note 1. Names of subgenera established under the zoological Code are, under the 
BioCode, treated as simultaneously established names of progenera (Art. 6.4). For 
practical purposes, subgenus and progenus are, for these names, treated as one and 


24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


the same rank. However, names of subgenera established under the botanical or 
bacteriological Code are not equivalent to names of progenera and remain outside the 
genus-group ranks. 

Note 2. Under Art. 1.1 every progenus is considered to belong to a given genus, but 
this affiliation is not reflected in its name. Transfer of a progenus from one genus to 
another does not therefore require a nomenclatural act. 


Article 27 

27.1. The name of an infrageneric taxon (subgenus, section, subsection, series or 
subseries) is a combination of a generic name and an epithet, the two being connected 
by the term denoting the rank. The epithet is either of the same form as a generic 
name, or a plural adjective. It is written with a capital initial letter. For practical 
purposes the generic name may be omitted in citation. 

27.2. Adjectival epithets agree in gender with the generic name. Errors in inflection 
are to be corrected, but the name retains its authorship and date. 

27.3. The name of an infrageneric taxon that includes the type of the accepted 
name of the genus 1s to repeat the generic name unchanged as its epithet. Such names 
are termed autonyms. 

27.4. The epithet in the name of an infrageneric taxon may not repeat unchanged 
the accepted name of the genus to which the taxon is assigned unless the two names 
have the same type. 


SECTION 4. SPECIES-GROUP TAXA AND INFRASPECIFIC TAXA 


Article 28 

28.1. The name of a species consists of a generic name followed by a single word 
as specific epithet. The epithet may have the form of an adjective, a noun in the 
genitive, or a word in apposition; it is written with a lower-case initial letter. 

28.2. In a name of a botanical taxon, ambiregnal taxa (Rec. 10A, footnote) 
excepted, the specific epithet may not exactly repeat the generic name. 

28.3. A name of a prospecies consists of the name of the species followed by a final 
epithet having the same form as a specific epithet. 

Note 1. Names of subspecies established under the zoological Code are, under the 
BioCode, treated as simultaneously established names of prospecies (Art. 6.6). For 
practical purposes, subspecies and prospecies are, for these names, treated as one and 
the same rank. However, names of subspecies established under the botanical or 
bacteriological Code are not equivalent to names of prospecies and remain outside 
the species-group ranks. 

Note 2. Insertion of the rank-denoting term ‘prospecies’ (prosp.) between the 
binomen and the final epithet 1s unnecessary. 

28.4. In a species-group name, the final epithet, when adjectival in form and not 
used as a noun, agrees grammatically with the generic name. Errors in inflection are 
to be corrected, but the name retains its authorship and date. 


Article 29 

29.1. The name of an infraspecific taxon is a combination of the name of a species 
and a final epithet, both being connected by a rank-denoting term. The epithet has 
the same form as a species-group epithet. Art. 28.4 applies by analogy. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 25 


29.2. The name of an infraspecific taxon that includes the type of the accepted 
name of the species is to repeat the specific epithet unchanged as its epithet. Such 
names are termed autonyms. 

29.3. The final epithet in the name of an infraspecific taxon may not repeat 
unchanged the epithet of the accepted name of the species to which the taxon is 
assigned unless the two names have the same type. 


CHAPTER IV. PROVISIONS FOR SPECIAL GROUPS 


Article 30 

30.1. Names for hybrids between different taxa of specific or lower rank, including 
their progeny, are provided for in the botanical Code. Except for some special rules, 
the nomenclature of these hybrids follows the same principles as that of non-hybrid 
taxa. 

Note 1. The zoological and bacteriological Codes do not provide for the naming of 
hybrids. 

30.2. Designations of hybrid taxa in supraspecific ranks that equivalent to 
condensed formulae, or have condensed formulae as their epithets, and are deter- 
mined by a statement of parentage under the botanical Code (Art. H7 & H9), are not 
established names under the BioCode. However, Art. 11 notwithstanding, names of 
species placed under such designations retain their status of established names under 
the BioCode. . 

Note 2. Distinguishable groups of cultivated plants and fungi, whose origin or 
selection is primarily due to the intentional actions of mankind (e.g., cultivars and 
cultivar-groups), are not covered by this Code, but are denominated under the 
provisions of the International code of nomenclature for cultivated plants. 


Article 31 

31.1. Names based on any part of an organism or portion of its life history are 
treated as applicable to the whole organism and compete for precedence as provided 
for in Art. 19-24, unless the relevant Special Code provides otherwise. 

31.2. Fossil non-algal botanical taxa are parataxa, which for nomenclatural 
purposes comprise only those parts, life-history stages, or preservation states of 
organisms that are represented by the corresponding name-bearing types. 

Note 1. When a name, under the relevant Special Code, applies only to that part of 
an organism or portion of its life history represented by its type, it is considered as 
the name of a parataxon. 

Note 2. The botanical Code currently provides for parataxa of certain groups of 
fungi with a pleomorphic life-cycle and of plant fossils. The zoological Code provides 
for taxa for the fossilised work of organisms (ichnotaxa). 


CHAPTER V. ORTHOGRAPHY AND GENDER OF NAMES 


Article 32 

32.1. For the purpose of the BioCode, orthographical variants are defined as the 
various spelling, compounding, and inflectional forms of a name or its epithet 
(including typographical errors), only one type being involved. Confusingly similar 
names based on the same type are also treated as orthographical variants. 


26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


Note I. For confusingly similar names based on different types, see Art. 18.6 and 
Sst 

32.2. Every established name is deemed to have a single correct orthography. Its 
variants are treated as correctable errors. The correctability of orthographical 
variants of names established prior to a future date to be determined (Div.III.3) is 
specified in the relevant Special Codes. The corresponding provisions remain 
applicable under the BioCode, complemented by those of Art. 33 (see also Art. 20.2 
and 21.2). 

32.3. Correctable orthographical variants of a name are to be corrected to the 
established form of that name. Whenever such a variant appears in print, it is to be 
treated as if it were printed in its corrected form. 


Article 33 

33.1. The original spelling of a name or epithet is to be retained, except for the 
correction of typographical or orthographical errors, the standardisation of termi- 
nations required by Art. 23.7, 24.3, 25.4, 27.2, 28.4, and 29.1 (see also Art. 32), and 
the corrections provided for by the relevant Special Code. 

Note I. For names established on or after the relevant starting date for mandatory 
registration (Art. 5.2), the words ‘original spelling’ in this Article mean the spelling 
employed when the name is submitted for registration. Any corrections and 
standardisations required under Art. 33.1 are made during the registration process. 


Article 34 

34.1. A generic name is treated as a noun with either masculine or feminine or 
neuter gender. Gender is established on the basis of classical Latin and Greek 
grammar, when applicable, and by subsequent biological usage (see also Annex B). 
In case of doubt, the gender assigned by the author of the name or, failing this, by 
the first subsequent author to assign a gender to the name, is accepted (see also Art. 
20.2, 21.2, and Annex B). 

34.2. Compound generic names take the gender of the last word in the nominative 
case in the compound. The most usual words used in compounding generic names, 
together with their gender, are listed in Annex B. 

34.3. The gender of generic names often depends on their termination. For 
those terminations for which a particular gender is defined in the Special Codes, that 
gender must be accepted. The most usual terminations used in forming generic 
names, together with their gender, are listed in Annex B (see also Art. 20.2 and 
Hi, [iy 

34.4. When a new generic name is submitted for registration without indication of 
gender, or with an indication of gender that is contrary to the Codes, the gender is 
assigned or corrected during registration. 


CHAPTER VI. AUTHORSHIP OF NAMES 


Article 35 

35.1. In publications dealing with the taxonomy and nomenclature of organisms, 
it may be desirable to cite the name of the author(s) who established the name 
concerned and the year of its establishment. For author citation, the rules of the 
relevant special Code apply, in addition to the provisions in the present Article. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 a 


35.2. When a name of a taxon is jointly authored by two persons, both author 
names are cited, linked with an ampersand (&) or the word ‘et’. When a name of a 
taxon has three or more authors, in subsequent citations only the first needs to be 
cited, followed by the phrase ‘& al.’ (or et al.). 

35.3. When a taxon of rank lower than progenus is altered in rank, or when its 
epithet is transferred to another genus or species, the names of the authors of the 
basionym (name- or epithet-bringing acceptable name), and optionally its year, are 
placed in parentheses. After the parenthesis, the authorship and year of the alteration 
or transfer may be added. 


Recommendation 35A 

35A.1. Inclusion of the name of persons other than the actual author or authors, 
linked to the latter by the particle ‘ex’, is provided for in the Special Codes. As the 
prescribed order of names differs between the Codes, so that confusion may result, 
this practice is discouraged under the BioCode. 

35A.2. Author citations should be used sparingly in publications dealing with the 
taxonomy and nomenclature of organisms, and should be omitted in other publica- 
tions unless they are necessary to avoid confusion. 


DIVISION III. AUTHORITY 

1. The BioCode is established under the joint authority of the International Union 
of Biological Sciences (IUBS) and of the International Union of Microbiological 
Societies (IUMS), to be exercised through an inter-union International Committee 
on Bionomenclature (ICB). | 

2. The ICB is a non-governmental organisation (NGO) consisting of up to 20 
members, with a balanced representation of the main groups of organisms covered by 
the Special Codes. It operates in close contact with the General Committee on 
Botanical Nomenclature (GCBN), the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature (ICZN), the International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology 
(ICSB), the International Commission for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants 
(ICNCP), and the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV). 

3. The BioCode takes effect upon being approved by an International Congress of 
Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (ICSEB), or any Congress that may in the 
future take its place, subject to ratification at the subsequent IUBS General Assembly 
or appropriate IUMS Divisional Congress. 

4. The dates on which individual provisions of the BioCode (Art. 5.2, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1, 
10.1, 16.6, 17.4, 18.2, 18.8, 32.2) take effect, for any particular purpose or group of 
organisms, are determined by the ICB, which will ensure that notice of such dates and 
of any relevant procedures be disseminated world-wide at least one year in advance. 
The ICB has also power to suspend the effect of any such provision, should this 
become necessary, and to designate Registration Centres for defined groups of 
organisms (Art. 12.1; see Div. III.8). 

5. The ICB has power to resolve present and future ambiguity concerning the 
provisions of the BioCode. In case of those organisms that have been or still are 
treated under different Special Codes by different workers, it will consult and seek to 
establish consensus among the specialists in the groups concerned. Based on these 
consultations, it shall — for nomenclatural purposes only — assign each controversial 
group of organisms to the jurisdiction of one of the Special Codes. 


28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


6. The first and future editions of the BioCode are published under the auspices of 
the International Organisation for Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (IOSEB), or 
any future successor organisation. 

7. The ICB has powers to edit future editions of the BioCode, and to amend its 
provisions where necessary. Any proposed change of substance must, however, be 
subject to public discussion before being approved by an ICSEB, or any Congress 
that may in the future take its place, and ratified by the subsequent IUBS General 
Assembly or appropriate IUMS Divisional Congress. 

7.1. The ICB will act on the proposals in the light of these opinions, a 60 % 
majority of voting members being required for the approval of a change, when a 
quorum of 50 % of members will apply. 

7.2. Any adopted change that is not of a retroactive nature will take effect from a 
date determined by the ICB. 

8. The ICB will operate in close contact with the Registering Centres (Annex A), 
when they exist, and will assist in setting up those that are wanting for a complete 
coverage of all groups of organisms. It will ensure that the technical requirements 
defined by each registering centre are compatible with user requirements and the 
letter and spirit of the BioCode. 

9. The ICB will not interfere with the activities of the nomenclature committees 
operating under the authority of the Special Codes, and will refrain from setting up 
similar structures under its own authority unless and until such a committee should 
cease to function. It will transmit to the pertinent nomenclature committee any 
request for the conservation or suppression of individual names, publications or 
nomenclatural acts (Art. 21), and seek its opinion and advice before adopting any list 
(Art. 20) or acting on any challenge of an epitype designation (Art. 16.5). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 29 


The early endeavours by Hugh Edwin Strickland to establish a code 
for zoological nomenclature in 1842-1843 


L.C. Rookmaaker 


University Museum of Zoology, University of Cambridge 
(e-mail: lcr26@cam.ac.uk) 


Abstract. Hugh Edwin Strickland (1811-1853) in 1837 published a preliminary set 
of 22 rules relating to established nomenclature and providing guidance in the 
formulation of names. Hoping to make such rules mandatory, he opted to gain the 
support of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. In September 
1841, he drafted a first code to be circulated among scientists at home and abroad 
to garner support and finalise the terminology. On 11 February 1842, the Council 
of the British Association appointed a committee to discuss zoological nomen- 
clature. This committee of 16 people met a few times in April 1842 to discuss the 
text of the rules, resulting in a second draft printed in May 1842. This document 
was discussed at the annual meeting of the British Association in Manchester on 
28 June 1842, without a clear result on the suitability of the rules. Strickland 
argued to members of Council that his report should be printed in the main 
section of the annual proceedings, where in fact they appeared in 1843. This was 
the first general printing of the rules of nomenclature, which later became known 
as the Strickland Code. 


Introduction 


In 1842, at the annual conference of the British Association for the Advancement of 
Science in Manchester, a report was read advocating guidelines to stabilise zoological 
nomenclature. It was presented by Hugh Strickland on behalf of a small committee 
and constituted the first steps towards a set of rules, which later became generally 
known as the Strickland Code for Zoological Nomenclature. This paper traces the 
genesis, development and outcome of Strickland’s endeavours to change the ways 
in which naturalists dealt with the increasing number of species in the animal 
kingdom. It is an expansion and revision of the historical information published in 
Rookmaaker (2010), largely based on a study of primary documents available in the 
Museum of Zoology, University of Cambridge (UMZC). 

Hugh Edwin Strickland (1811-1853) had wide-ranging interests encompassing all 
branches of natural history including geology, palaeontology and zoology, with 
emphasis on ornithology. During his relatively short life, cut short by a freak railway 
accident, Strickland studied in Oxford, toured Asia Minor, helped to start the Ray 
Society, wrote a book on the extinct dodo, actively participated in the conferences of 
the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) and published about 
264 papers. In 1845 he married Catherine Dorcas Maule (1825-1888), the second 
daughter of the famous naturalist and author, Sir William Jardine (1800-1874). They 
lived at Apperley Court near Deerhurst, Gloucestershire, when Strickland started his 
career as Deputy Reader in Geology at the University in Oxford in 1850. Strickland 


30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


was an active collector especially of birds, both British and foreign. After his sudden 
death, his life and writings were set out by Jardine (1858). 

Strickland’s scientific legacy passed to the University of Cambridge in several 
stages. His collection of birds (about 6006 skins of 3117 species) was donated by his 
wife Catherine in 1867, his scientific library of over 400 volumes was added in 1875, 
while his extensive scientific correspondence was presented in 1892. The latter 
collection, known as the ‘Strickland Archive’ and preserved in UMZC, contains 3246 
items traditionally divided into five sections (Rookmaaker, 2010). References made 
to these documents below are given in the format ‘N-000’, with ‘N’ indicating the 
section on nomenclature, which has 182 items ranging in date from 1841-1883. 


First thoughts on nomenclature 


Ornithology ranked high among Strickland’s interests. He amassed an impressive 
collection of local and foreign birds, outstanding in quantity as well as quality. He 
felt it was imperative that all birds were accurately named and that the specimens 
were arranged in a logical or natural order. He studied the available literature from 
around the globe to find the information needed to assist his ongoing task. Like any 
zoologist studying a particular group of organisms in his time, he found that authors 
liberally bestowed and altered scientific names, resulting in a bewildering duplication 
of names and an expanding synonymy. When he read a short note by the unidentified 
S.D.W. (1834) advocating a change of the name of the ‘bullfinch’ in favour of 
‘coalhood’, supposedly more descriptive or appropriate, he quickly drafted a reply 
for the Magazine of Natural History. Strickland (1835) emphatically argued against 
such so-called arbitrary and unlicensed alteration of established names. He wanted 
names to be unique and unalterable, rather than appropriate, and suggested that 
‘priority seems to be the universal law for the adoption of specific names’ (p. 40). He 
knew that his personal opinion would remain unheeded unless ‘an authorised body 
could be constituted, to frame a code of laws for naturalists, instead of the present 
anarchical state of things, in which everyone does that which is right in his own eyes’ 
(p. 37). He expanded these views during the next few years in a series of short papers 
(Strickland, 1837a, b, 1838a, b), partly in response to critical remarks by William 
Ogilby (1838), as recently reviewed by McOuat (1996, 2001la) and Dayrat (2010). 
Strickland (1837b) provided a general set of 22 rules, first relating to established 
nomenclature stating the right of the discoverer of a species to name it, secondly 
providing guidance on how to formulate names properly. He then needed to find an 
established scientific body to formalise these regulations and make them binding for 
future scientists. 


The Proposed Plan of 1841 


His first choice was the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS), 
during that period the most prestigious, influential and national forum for scientists 
from all disciplines. He was an active participant of their annual meetings from 1837 
onwards and served on Council in 1840 and 1841 (BAAS 1842, pp. vii, x). First he 
needed to discover how much support or opposition he could encounter. Hence he 
sought advice from William Jardine in July 1841, probably shortly before the BAAS 
meeting scheduled to take place in Plymouth at the end of the month: ‘I have some 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 31 


thoughts of moving in the Zoological Section at Plymouth for the appointment of a 
Committee to prepare a set of regulations with the view of establishing a permanent 
system of zoological nomenclature. I should be glad to have your opinion on the 
subject. The plan which I propose will not interfere with zoological classification, in 
which everyone must in the present state of the science be left to please himself” 
(letter reproduced in Jardine, 1858, p. clxxv; the original is not in the Archive). 

Jardine’s response, now lost, must have been favourable. Strickland went to the 
conference in Plymouth well prepared to launch his appeal and to defend his set of 
rules. It is not clear if the need to streamline nomenclature was actually discussed 
during any of the scheduled plenary or sectional meetings in Plymouth. There is no 
trace of any resolution or grant relating to Strickland’s project either in the official 
Report published in 1842 or in the more current and comprehensive reviews in the 
Athenaeum, the main contemporary news magazine for literary and scientific news. 
However, Jardine (1858, p. clxxv) recalled that in Plymouth ‘its general necessity 
[was] acknowledged, and after some opposition it was moved that a Committee be 
appointed.’ The same course of events might be inferred from a draft in Jardine’s 
hand (N-088) of a motion carried at the 1841 meeting to appoint a committee. 
Obviously Jardine and Strickland lobbied among the delegates at the time of the 
meeting, but from all available evidence it appears unlikely that there was in fact any 
formal progress in Plymouth. Jardine could have known that his memory was faulty 
when he wrote his memoir of Strickland’s life in 1858, because the draft of a motion 
put his name forward to chair the committee (other members proposed were Jenyns, 
Westwood, Henslow, Ball, Taylor and Strickland). In fact, Jardine never participated 
in any committee on zoological nomenclature in the 1840s, probably due to his 
residence being too distant from London. 

Apparently undeterred by the lack of a resolution during the BAAS meeting of 
1841, Strickland (with the silent encouragement of Jardine) went ahead and drafted 
a set of rules to govern zoological nomenclature. Dated September 1841, this was 
printed as a small pamphlet of 15 pages (by Richard and John E. Taylor, Red Lion 
Court, Fleet Street, London), entitled Proposed plan for rendering the nomenclature of 
zoology uniform and permanent (N-089; fig. 1). Here Strickland explained that ‘it is 
proposed at a future period to submit the following scheme to the consideration of 
the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Previously, however, to 
doing so, it seems desirable to mature the plan as much as possible, by obtaining the 
opinions of eminent zoologists in various countries ...’ 

According to Sclater (1878, pp. 25—27), following a list prepared by Mrs Catherine 
Strickland, this first draft of the rules was circulated among 213 naturalists and 
societies, both local and foreign. The Strickland Archive includes a number of lists of 
those receiving drafts of the rules of nomenclature, respectively with 43 names (N-090 
— for first draft, dated September 1841), 186 names (N-154, undated), 38 names 
(N-155, undated) and 32 names (N-120 — for second draft, May 1842), but their 
chronology and scope are unknown. Despite these efforts, only eight written replies 
concerning the contents of this first draft of September 1841 are present in the 
Strickland Archive, from John O. Westwood (12 October 1841, 22 February 1842), 
Edward H. Bunbury (1842), William E. Shuckard (1842), John S. Henslow (1 March 
1842), Charles Darwin (17 February 1842, cf. Burckhardt & Smith 1985, p. 311), 
John Richardson (1 March 1842), Leonard Jenyns (16 March 1842), William J. 


32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


Broderip (25 April 1842) and Charles Lucien Bonaparte (20 January 1842, cf. Jardine 
1858, p. clxxvi). 


The Council of the BAAS 


With most responses supportive and agreeable to the wording of the text, Strickland 
decided to move ahead and prepare for the next annual BAAS meeting. On 22 
December 1841 Strickland enquired from the General Secretaries of the BAAS 
(Roderick Murchison and Edward Sabine) if the Council had the power to appoint 
a committee, which could then prepare a report to be discussed at the general 
meeting, thereby gaining a year in the proceedings (N-093). Sabine replied on 24 
December that Council would not object as long as Strickland could provide a list of 
people willing to be part of this new committee (N-095). During the next few months 
therefore, Strickland circulated his Proposed Plan of September 1841 and asked a 
number of scientists if they would be willing to participate. References to the 
formation of the committee were found in letters from Henslow, Westwood, 
Richardson, Broderip and Jenyns written in the first months of 1842. 

When the Council met again in London on 11 February 1842, Strickland was 
prepared and obtained permission to continue his work. Sabine reported in the 
minutes of this meeting that “With a view of securing early attention to an important 
subject, the Council requested the following Gentlemen, who were represented as 
willing to set together for the purpose to consider if the rules by which the 
nomenclature of Zoology might be established on a uniform and permanent basis, 
and to report thereon to Section D, at the meeting at Manchester: — Mr. Darwin, 
Prof. Henslow, Rev. N. Jenyns, Mr. Ogilby, Mr. J. Phillips, Dr. Richardson, Mr. 
Strickland reporter, Mr. Westwood’ (Minutes read to the BAAS meeting in 
Manchester on 22 June as reported in the Athenaeum of 25 June 1842; cf. also BAAS 
1843, pp. 105-106). 

This committee first met on 28 April 1842 in the rooms of the Zoological Society, 
57 Pall Mall (N-112). It was decided to co-opt another five members to the 
committee, to make a total of 13, adding Bell, Broderip, Smith, Waterhouse and 
Yarrell. The last named acted as chairman, while Strickland remained the reporter. 
In the second meeting of the committee, held a week later on 5 May 1842 at Yarrell’s 
house in London, the text of the first draft was discussed and revised. Only five 
committee members could be present at the time (Yarrell, Ogilby, Waterhouse, 
Westwood, Strickland, see N-113), and another three members were invited to join: 
Owen, Shuckard and Whewell, making a total of 16 (Table 1). 

A second draft of the rules was printed in May 1842, again by Taylor in London, 
entitled Proposed Report of the Committee on Zoological Nomenclature. For the use of 
the members of the Committee (16 pages, N-119; fig. 2). This second printed pamphlet 
was distributed to at least 32 people (N-120). Comments were received from 12 
persons, 1.e. William E. Shuckard (24 June 1842), Charles Darwin (31 May 1842, cf. 
Burckhardt & Smith 1985, p. 320), Leonard Jenyns (26 May 1842), William J. 
Broderip (5 May 1842, 17 August 1842), Robert Ball (2 May 1842), William 
Buckland (30 May 1842), Alexander Keyserling (June 1842), William Thompson 
(6 June 1842), John Phillips (9 June 1842), George R. Waterhouse (12 June 1842), 
Louis Agassiz (18 June 1842, cf. Jardine 1858, pp. clxxix—clxxxvi) and James Sowerby 
(29 June 1842). 


33 


x 9C8I-P8LI “WRIT “Tole x 
998I-P6L] “WRIT “TTomMoyM 

x x €68I-SO8I “YeIpeqo uYyor *poomyso A 
X S88 I-OI8I ‘Moqoy ow 1oey ‘asnoysajeE A 
x SS8I-I8LI “preyory “1ojée y, 

x x x ESSI-LI81 “UIMpy YsIy ‘puepyong 
x CL8I-LOLI ‘MOIpPUY “YIIUUS 
898I-ZO8I “PlemMpy Weyl ‘preyonys 
x x CO8I-L8LI “UYor ‘uospleyory 
pL81-0081 “Uyor ‘sdiftyg 
768I-PO8I “Preyory “UsMO 
EL81-8081 “Wei “AqiisO 
x ¥ ¥ €68I-O08I ‘preuoeyT ‘suAuor 
PL8 1-008] “WeI[IM ‘oulprer 
198I-96LI “SUsAs}g UYOr ‘Mo[sUdH 
x 7881-6081 “Meqoy sejieyD ‘uIMied 
6S8I-68L1 “UYyor wei ‘diuoporg 

O88I-Zé6LI ‘sewoYL ‘Tog 

x LS8I-ZO8I “Meqoy ‘Ted 


x KK RK 


* 


Kx KK RK 
~ 
Kx KK KK KK RK 
ad ~*~ 
~< »* 


*< 


*< 
ad 
a 


x KKK 
x KK RK 


SollOJeUsIs JIOdayY SVVq SUN 90} } IU, 90}}IUUUO7) SVVqg [lounog yep posodolig 


Eps ounf Zr ¢ Ae 78 87 Idv Trl qe 781 A[ne [pst 
ee ES eS es SS 2 eee 2 ee oe 8 ee - 2 Se ee ee Ce 


CP8I-Ip8l ‘(lepsio [eoneqeydye) oinjepousWiou [eoIZoTOOZ JO $9o}}IWILUOD OY] YIM pojeloosse suOsIog *[ Iquy. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


The Manchester BAAS meeting in 1842 

The next major step was to present the findings of the Committee to the scientists 
assembled at the BAAS meeting in Manchester in June 1842. The meetings of the 
BAAS were usually attended by close to a thousand scientists. This required a rigid 
structure of the proceedings, where reports and papers were read either to the general 
assembly or to smaller groups called sections. Section D was set aside for botany and 
zoology. The course of the proceedings of the conference, which lasted from 22 June 
to 29 June 1842, is best followed, as was usual for those unable to attend, in the 
accounts supplied by a reporter of the Athenaeum (1842). During the general 
assembly on the 22nd, Sabine as secretary read the minutes of Council, which 
included the appointment of the committee on zoological nomenclature earlier in the 
year. 

In the meeting of Section D on Tuesday 28 June, Strickland had a chance to read 
the committee’s report, which ‘was followed by a discussion on the propriety of 
printing it in the next volume of the 7ransactions of the Association, as it contained 
so much that was only matter of opinion, and as time had not been afforded for 
collecting generally the opinions of zoologists on the subject. The question was 
eventually referred to the committee [of the Section], as a matter of business’ 
(Athenaeum, 1842, p. 690). Jardine (1858, p. cxcili) provided a more personal view of 
the discussions: ‘after being read and explained, as far as time and circumstances 
would allow, it encountered an opposition that was scarcely expected, couched in a 
spirit of prejudice, and almost jealous animosity, which was discreditable to the 
discontents, no matter what their opinions might be. But in all this, the opposition 
never assumed a definite form; and it is remarkable that among all the correspon- 
dence, and in all the discussions, we have scarcely a dissentient voice on the general 
question, and that the objections and criticisms lay almost entirely in the impropriety 
of making such radical changes as those proposed appeared to be, and in the 
difficulty of getting the ‘plan’ worked out and adopted. Some modern inventors of 
names felt sorely the criticism of their views and compositions, which many of the 
clauses exposed; and although no reference was made individually, or possibly could 
have been allowed in a report of the kind, and sanctioned by such authority, yet 
oversensitive minds took many of the clauses as aimed at themselves, hence the 
almost acrimony of some of the observations in the Manchester discussion. But these 
very circumstances caused their fall, and prevented any distinct motion being made 
for either censure or delay; and the report, after being well thrashed, was left in the 
hands of the Committee.’ It appears that John Edward Gray (1800-1875) of the 
British Museum was one of the more prominent people opposed to the introduction 
of the rules (McOuat, 2001b). 

The issue had already taken up too much time of the conference to be given a 
further hearing. The four members of the committee present in Manchester had in 
fact prepared a final version of their report ready for final consideration, but they 
did not get a further chance to present this (N-134: Strickland to Waterhouse, 11 
July 1842). On the final day, Wednesday 29 June 1842, the committee of Section D 
resolved (a motion moved by Richardson and seconded by Owen), ‘that the 
Committee of the Section of Zoology and Botany have too little time during the 
Meeting of the Association to discuss a Report on Nomenclature, and therefore 
remit to the special Committee appointed to draw up the Report, to present it on 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 35 


their own responsibility’ (Strickland, 1843a, p. 106). At the same time, a grant was 
provided in order ‘that Mr. H.E. Strickland, Mr. C. Darwin, Professor Henslow, 
Rev. L. Jenyns, Mr. J. Phillips, Dr. Richardson, Mr. J.O. Westwood, Professor 
Owen, Mr. Broderip, be a Committee for printing and circulating their Report on 
Zoological Nomenclature, with the sum of 10 £ at their disposal for the purpose’ 
(BAAS 1843, pp. xx, XxXiii). 


The first printing of the Rules 


The reception of the propositions on zoological nomenclature at the Manchester 
meeting was rather less enthusiastic and supportive than Strickland would have 
wished. The reporter of the Athenaeum even mentioned that it was a ‘personal 
opinion’, which was exactly the impression that Strickland so emphatically tried to 
avoid. He could publish his views in any of the natural history journals at the time, 
but the rules needed the backing of a scientific organisation to have any chance of 
succeeding in stabilising nomenclature. He had persuaded the Council of the BAAS 
to appoint a committee of eminent scientists, who revised and lend credence to the 
text of the propositions. He was not now about to lose the momentum, knowing that 
otherwise the proposals would not receive a second hearing. 

After the BAAS Council had met again in early August 1842, Strickland heard 
through John Phillips that it was the intention to print the ‘rules’ in the proceedings 
of section D, rather than in those of the plenary meetings. All Reports of the BAAS 
meetings were divided into two parts, the first with the general contents presented by 
the Council, followed by the second with papers presented to the sections and 
submitted under the auspices of the sectional officers. The distinction is trivial in 
hindsight, but Strickland knew that it would substantially increase the status of the 
‘rules’ if readers would have the impression that it had the backing of the BAAS as 
an institution. As during the 1842 conference the reading of the ‘rules’ had been 
referred to a session of section D, Strickland could be reasonably sure of publication, 
but not necessarily in the main section. Hence, he wrote to Sabine (N-138) and 
Lankester (N-141) in early August to clarify the issue. Sabine, as the executive of the 
BAAS Council, explained in a letter of 17 August (N-139) that Section D failed to 
pass a special resolution to recommend the printing of the ‘rules’ in the proceedings, 
hence the Council’s dilemma. Lankester, in his reply of 20 August (N-142), stated 
that Section D had meant to allow printing of the ‘rules’ as long as it was done under 
the sole responsibility of the authors. 

Strickland then wrote back to Sabine (20 August 1842, N-146) that he had never 
heard of a distinct resolution by one of the sections to print a report. Besides, a grant 
of £10 had been approved to ensure circulation of extra copies of the ‘rules’ after it 
had been printed in the proceedings. Sabine, who knew the rules of the BAAS 
obviously better than anybody else, further elucidated (23 August, N-147) that a 
special resolution was necessary because the ‘rules’ were not the result of an action by 
the Section, rather were presented by a committee appointed by Council. However, 
if there would be a preface to state that the responsibility of the contents of the ‘rules’ 
rested with the authors rather than the Association, and if the matter would be 
addressed by Council, he would not object to its insertion. Fortunately, Strickland 
was personally known to most of the council members and his opinions were highly 
regarded. 


2 


ip 


(LI-N 

‘OATYOIY PUBLILNS 
‘OZWN) 2agguuuoy 
ayy fO Sdaquiaul 

ayy fo asn ay] 

AO ‘adANJDIIUGUO N 
1091801007 

UO aajJIWWUOD ayj 
fo j4oday pasodoig 
poyjque ‘uopuo’'T 

ul JoyAey, Aq 

Tr8t Ae Ur poyutid 
So[N1, 94} JO esp 
puoses 94} Jo osed 
“OPLL “GYSu) °Z “Sy 


1 Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


1Ca 


'(680-N 

‘SATYOIY PURLLS 
‘ZINA ()) Juaunuiad 
pup usofiun 4801002 
{0 aanjojauauou 

ay) SUuLAapuad 

1of unjd pasodoig 
peu “wopuo’y 
‘JOO1S Joo ‘Wnod 
UOTT poy ‘1ojAR LA 
uyor pue preyory 
Aq poyulid pue [pg] 
Joquiajdag polep 
‘aInj}epPOUsWIOU IOJ 
sa[ni Jo yelp poyutid 
\sIY oy} Jo osed 
-OPLL “GID “1 “Sta 


in of Zoolog 


Bullet 


36 


37 


‘(QESI-N ‘OATgOIY 


PUrPYLNS “OZNN) 
SISpg Juaupuisad pun 


wUsofiun D uo paYysygqvisa 
aq Apu A8o0j007 fo 
JANJDIIUBUON IY) YOIYM 
Aq sajna ay) fo sapisuod 
0], pajuioddn aajjimuoy 
p fo j4oday poyynue 
yoryduwied ve se .sopni, 94} 
Jo yulider oy} Jo osed 


ISIE “QUSL) *p “SI 


1 Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


1Ca 


(eps) 

SOI ‘d ‘Z] “Joa ‘aoualog 
fo Juaumaoupapy ay] 

LOf UOIDIIOSSP YSI1AG 
ays fo suljaayy ays 

fo j4oday oy} ul poyutid 
se siseq juoueULIod pue 
Wa4ojlun & UO poys[qeiso 
oq Ae ASO[OOZ Jo 
d1nj}e[OUSWOU oY} YOIyM 
Aq so[ny oy} JO Japisuos 
0} pojutodde 9071107) 
B JO Wodeay, sy} Jo 
ased sil “(J°]) “€ “Sy 


in of Zoolog 


Bullet 


38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


Although the documents give no further insight in the decision-making process, 
Strickland’s manoeuvring was obviously successful, as the ‘rules’ were printed in 
the main section of the Report of the 1842 Manchester meeting, which appeared in 
1843 (BAAS 1843, pp. 105-121; fig. 3). The text is prefaced by the relevant 
resolutions and the work of the committee is emphasised. The authority under 
which it was issued is left unnoticed, thereby obviously leaving an impression that 
the contents were in fact approved by the BAAS. The report was dated ‘June 27, 
1842’ (the date of final composition, not that of the reading) and signed by 
Strickland, Phillips, Richardson, Owen, Jenyns, Broderip, Shuckard, Waterhouse, 
Yarrell, Darwin and Westwood. The actual date of distribution of the Report of 
the Manchester meeting of the BAAS is unknown, but it is likely that it was 
available in March 1843 at the latest, because it was reprinted in Jardine’s Annals 
of Natural History for April 1843 (Strickland 1843c) and in Taylor’s London, 
Edinburgh and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science for August 
1843 (Strickland 1843d). In these two periodicals, the ‘rules’ were credited to a 
committee ‘appointed by the British Association for the Advancement of Science,’ 
exactly how Strickland intended it to be written. 

The ‘rules’ were also reprinted (probably in 1843) as a small pamphlet entitled 
Report of a Committee appointed ‘to consider of the rules by which the Nomenclature 
of Zoology may be established on a uniform and permanent basis’ (Strickland, 1843b; 
N-153b, fig. 4). It has 17 pages, like the version printed in the BAAS Report, but the 
type-setting and breaks in pages are not identical. In the pamphlet, the following text 
is printed above the title: ‘Presented by the British Association for the Advancement 
of Science, to [blank]’. There exists a separate title-page, detached from the pamphlet 
(N-153b), where Strickland is given as the author and the publisher is provided: 
‘London: Printed by Richard and John E. Taylor, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street. 
1844.’ The pamphlet was printed and circulated according to the directions issued at 
the Manchester meeting using the grant of £10. Soon there were translations into 
French, a reprint in an American journal, and discussions among Italian scientists 
(Daryat, 2010; Minelli, 2008). 


The reception of the Rules 


The real battle still had to be fought. Strickland had done all he could to draft the 
rules and recommendations, to select interested and eminent scientists to constitute 
a committee, to receive the backing of an eminent society like the British Association 
for the Advancement of Science and to get his work in print and circulated both at 
home and abroad. He provided a platform for discussion and revision, he had sown 
the seeds. Now it was up to working scientists to follow his lead and put the directives 
into practice. Change could only come slowly. Charles Darwin, for instance, 
although one of the signatories of the ‘rules’, confessed to find ‘the rules very useful; 
it is quite a comfort to have something to rest on in the turbulent ocean of 
nomenclature, (& am accordingly grateful to you) though I find it very difficult to 
obey always’ (Darwin to Strickland, 29 January 1849; N-168). Jardine (1866, p. 267) 
gave a fair summary of the acceptance of the ‘rules’ during the first twenty years in 
saying that ‘zoological nomenclature has not improved. Whether it is from the rules 
and recommendations not being sufficiently well known, or from an idea that no one 
has any right to interfere with or make rules for others, many gentlemen appear to 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 39 


cast them away, and do not recognise them at all, while others accept or reject just 
what pleases themselves’. 

Strickland’s ‘rules’ were restructured and reprinted in the 1860’s, again under the 
auspices of the BAAS (Jardine 1866). 

New rules of course take time to be disseminated and to become accepted. It is in 
the interest of all taxonomists to base their work on a nomenclature which is 
up-to-date and stable. Perhaps British naturalists in the nineteenth century could 
have embraced Strickland’s Code with more fervour and unanimity. Many of them, 
and their colleagues in other parts of the world, did take heed of the important 
propositions suggested by Strickland. This paved the way to the foundation of the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in 1895 (Melville, 1995) and 
the publication of the new editions of the Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 


Acknowledgements 


Professor Michael Akam provided much support and guidance as Director of the 
University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge, throughout the duration of the archival 
projects. I like to thank my colleagues at the museum for assistance, especially Ray 
Symonds, Ann Charlton, Russell Stebbings, Stuart Turner and Matt Lowe. 


References 


Athenaeum. 1843. Twelfth meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. 
Athenaeum, no. 765 (25 June): 567-568; no. 766 (2 July): 587-598; no. 767 (9 July): 
613-621; no. 768 (16 July): 637-643; no. 769 (23 July): 660-669; no. 770 (30 July): 
686-693. 

BAAS (British Association for the Advancement of Science). 1842. Report of the eleventh meeting 
of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held at Plymouth in July 1841. 
Xxxv, 356, vii, 115 pp. John Murray, London. 

BAAS (British Association for the Advancement of Science). 1843. Report of the twelfth meeting 
of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held at Manchester in June 1842. 
Xxxvl, 213, viii, 126 pp. John Murray, London. 

Burckhardt, F. & Smith, S. 1985. The correspondence of Charles Darwin, vol. 2: 1837-1843. 
Xxxill, 609 pp. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

Dayrat, B. 2010. Celebrating 250 dynamic years of nomenclatural debates. Pp. 185-239 in 
Polaszek, Andrew (Ed.), Systema Naturae 250: The Linnean ark. xvi, 276 pp. CRC Press, 
Boca Raton. 

Jardine, W. 1858. Memoirs of Hugh Edwin Strickland, M.A., Fellow of the Royal, Linnean, 
Geological and Royal Geographical Societies, etc. Deputy Reader of Geology in Oxford. 
cclxv, xvi, 441 pp. John van Voorst, London. 

Jardine, W. 1866. Report of a Committee “appointed to report on the changes they make 
consider desirable to make, if any, in the Rules of Zoological Nomenclature drawn up by 
Mr. H.E. Strickland, at the instance of the British Association at their meeting in 
Manchester in 1842. Report of the Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement 
of Science, 35 (Birmingham, 1865): 25-42. 

McOuat, G.R. 1996. Species, rules and meaning: the politics of language and the ends of 
definitions in 19th century natural history. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 
27(4): 473-519. 

McOuat, G.R. 2001a. From cutting nature at its joints to measuring it: new kinds and new 
kinds of people in biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 32(4): 613-645. 

McOuat, G.R. 2001b. Cataloguing power: delineating ‘competent naturalists’ and the meaning 
of species in the British Museum, British Journal for the History of Science, 34(1): 1-28. 

Melville, R.V. 1995. Towards stability in the names of animals: a history of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995. viii, 92 pp. ICZN, London. 


40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


Minelli, A. 2008. Zoological vs. botanical nomenclature: a forgotten “Biocode’ experiment 
from the times of the Strickland Code. Zootaxa, 1950: 21-38. 

Ogilby, W. 1838. Observations on ‘rules for nomenclature’ Magazine of Natural History, (n.s.) 
2: 150-157. 

Rookmaaker, L.C. 2010. Calendar of the scientific correspondence of Hugh Edwin Strickland in 
the University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge. 379 pp. University Museum of Zoology, 
Cambridge. 

S.D.W. 1834. Species of birds of which individuals in plumage anomalous to that of the 
species, and permanent, have been known. Magazine of Natural History, 7: 593-594. 

Sclater, P.L. 1878. Rules for zoological nomenclature drawn up by the late H.E. Strickland, 
M.A., F.R.S. (assisted by many zoologists, British and Foreign), at the instance of the 
British Association. 27 pp. John Murray, London. 

Strickland, H.E. 1835. On the arbitratry alteration of established terms in natural history. 
Magazine of Natural History, 8: 36-40. 

Strickland, H.E. 1837a. On the inexpediency of altering established terms in natural history. 
Magazine of Natural History, (2)1: 127-131. 

Strickland, H.E. 1837b. Rules for zoological nomenclature. Magazine of Natural History, (2)1: 
173-176. 

Strickland, H.E. 1838a. Reply to Mr. Ogilby’s ‘Observations on rules for nomenclature’. 
Magazine of Natural History, (2)2: 198-204. 

Strickland, H.E. 1838b. Remarks on Mr. Ogilby’s ‘Further observations on rules for 
nomenclature.’ Magazine of Natural History, (2)2: 326-331. 

Strickland, H.E. 1841. Proposed plan for rendering the nomenclature of zoology uniform and 
permanent. (Draft, September 1841.) 15 pp. Printed by Richard & John E. Taylor, Red 
Lion Court, Fleet Street, London. [Strickland Archive, N-089]. 

Strickland, H.E. 1842. Proposed report of the Committee on Zoological Nomenclature. For the 
use of the members of the Committee. (Second draft, May 1842.) 16 pp. Printed by Richard 
& John E. Taylor, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London. [Strickland Archive, N-119]. 

Strickland, H.E. 1843a. Report of a Committee appointed to consider of the Rules by which 
the nomenclature of zoology may be established on a uniform and permanent basis. 
Report of the Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 12 
(Manchester 1842): 105-120. [Reprinted in Jardine 1858, p. 375 and Minelli 2008]. 

Strickland, H.E. [1843b]. Report of a Committee appointed “‘to consider of the rules by which the 
Nomenclature of Zoology may be established on a uniform and permanent basis’. 17 pp. No 
publisher, no place. [Strickland Archive N-153a; reproduced on http://www.darwin- 
online.org.uk]. 

Strickland, H.E. 1843c. Series of propositions for rendering the nomenclature of zoology 
uniform and permanent, being the report of a Committee for the consideration of the 
subject, appointed by the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Annals of 
Natural History, 11(70): 259-275. 

Strickland, H.E. 1843d. Series of propositions for rendering the nomenclature of zoology 
uniform and permanent, being the report of a Committee for the consideration of the 
subject, appointed by the British Association for the Advancement of Science. London, 
Edinburgh and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, (3)23(150): 108-124. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 4] 


Case 3532 


Murex tubercularis Montagu, 1803 (currently Cerithiopsis 
tubercularis; Mollusca, Gastropoda, CERITHIOPSIDAE): proposed 
conservation of usage of the specific name by designation of a neotype 


Alberto Cecalupo 
Via Grancino 6y, 20090 Buccinasco, Italy 


Elio Robba 


Dipartimento di Scienze Geologiche e Geotecnologie, Universita degli Studi 
di Milano Bicocca, Piazza della Scienza 4, 20126 Milano, Italy 
(e-mail: elio.robba@unimib.1it) 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 75.6 of the Code, is to 
conserve the current usage of the name Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu, 1803) for 
a species of cerithiopsine gastropod from the southern coast of Great Britain. The 
lectotype of Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu, 1803) is not in taxonomic accord 
with the current usage of this name and the confusing description ignoring the part 
bearing the most obvious diagnostic characters led to considerable confusion. It is 
proposed that the previous type fixations for the species Cerithiopsis tubercularis 
(Montagu, 1803) be set aside and a neotype consistent with the current usage be 
designated. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; CERITHIOPSIDAE; Cerithiopsis; Cerithiopsis tuber- 
cularis; cerithiopsine gastropod; Recent; Atlantic; Mediterranean. 


1. Murex tubercularis was established by Montagu (1803, p. 270) on the basis of 
Recent British specimens found at ‘the mouth of the Ann in Devonshire’ and ‘on the 
coast of Sandwich’. In Montagu’s text there is no information about the number of 
specimens dealt with. The brief original description ‘M. with nine or ten, slender, 
taper, tuberculated volutions, separated only by a slight depression: colour chestnut- 
brown: apex pointed; aperture small, oval, ending in a canal, somewhat enclosed by 
the columella turning inward. Length a quarter of an inch’, and the absence of any 
illustration failed to clarify the distinguishing characters of the species. Forbes & 
Hanley (1851), introducing the new genus Cerithiopsis for Montagu’s species (p. 364), 
were the first to delineate (p. 365) the main characters of Cerithiopsis tubercularis, 
which was reported to have a uniform dark or chocolate-brown colour, three to 
four smooth and semitransparent apical whorls, 3 spiral rows of beads on the spire 
whorls, and 2-3 basal spirals. The interpretation of most subsequent workers has 
followed the species concept outlined by Forbes & Hanley (1851). Only some 
sculptural details of the protoconch, i.e. subsutural and suprasutural granular micro- 
protuberances, were discovered more recently with the advent of scanning electron 
microscopy. 


42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


2. While there is general agreement about the teleoconch characters of C. 
tubercularis, remarkable discrepancies exist concerning the sculpture of the larval shell 
of the species (cf. Jeffreys, 1885; Glibert, 1973; Richter & Thorson, 1975; Grecchi, 
1984; Giribet & Pefias, 1997; Giannuzzi-Savelli et al., 1999; Landau et al., 2006; Chirli, 
2009; Prki¢é & Mariottini, 2009). Marshall (1978), aiming to correctly interpret 
Cerithiopsis tubercularis, examined a syntype from the Montagu Collection in the City 
Museum, Exeter (EXEMS) and designated it as lectotype of C. tubercularis. Marshall 
(p. 83) provided a detailed description of the protoconch of the lectotype ‘Protoconch 
of planktotrophic larval type, clearly demarcated from teleoconch whorls. Last 
half-whorl with a sharp peripheral carina and evenly spaced brephic riblets on 
shoulder. First 11 (embryonic) whorls minutely granulate throughout. Subsequent 
whorls traversed over abapical two-thirds by fine, crisp, evenly spaced prosocline 
riblets; each riblet with about 5 evenly spaced triangles extending in the direction of 
coiling for about width of rib from apertural side. Sinusigera sinus deep, opisthocyrt- 
opisthocline.’ Marshall (1978, fig. 13C) figured the entire shell of the lectotype of C. 
tubercularis without any SEM image of its protoconch. 

3. Montagu’s original material in EXEMS consists of one box with two specimens 
glued to a small piece of paper attached to the original manuscript label; these 
specimens are collectively numbered 4235. The first syntype (Fig. 1A) lacks the 
protoconch. Its teleoconch of about 10 whorls conforms to the concept of Cerithi- 
opsis tubercularis followed for nearly two centuries by most authors and is not in 
disagreement with the short description published by Montagu; there are no upper 
basal spirals and the color is reddish-brown. The second syntype retains only the last 
protoconch whorl (Fig. 1C) sculptured with sparse granules and unevenly spaced, 
broken prosocline riblets on the abapical three-quarters, with remnants of minute 
granules occurring subsuturally. The teleoconch (Fig. 1B) of about 8 whorls is closely 
similar to that of the first syntype; the color is whitish. This specimen was designated 
as the lectotype of C. tubercularis by Marshall (1978) as indicated by a label of 
National Museum, Wellington, N.Z., now in EXEMS (Fig. 1D). The illustration of 
the lectotype published by Marshall (1978, fig. 13C) shows a shell with a complete 
protoconch; thus, it must be inferred that the protoconch was broken after 
Marshall’s examination of the specimen. The sculpture observed on the preserved 
whorl (the last) of the protoconch scarcely agrees with the description of the larval 
shell of the lectotype provided by Marshall, whereas it matches that reported by 
Marshall (1978, p. 84) for his new species Cerithiopsis powelli (Fig. 1G). The 
description of the larval shell of the lectotype of Cerithiopsis tubercularis published by 
Marshall (1978) agrees with that of the lectotype of Cerithiopsis barleei Jeffreys, 1867 
(Fig. 11) in the Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, 
Washington (USNM), selected from lot USNM 62164 by Cecalupo & Robba (2010). 
This suggests that the type series of C. tubercularis is probably mixed and that the 
lectotype designated by Marshall could in fact be C. barleei. However, the sculpture 
on the last protoconch whorl (the preserved one) of the lectotype of C. tubercularis 
in EXEMS is more similar to that of New Zealand Cerithiopsis powelli as described 
and figured by Marshall (1978) than to that of the Atlantic and Mediterranean C. 
barleei. Because of this discrepancy, it is unclear which specimen Marshall actually 
examined, and the taxonomic identity of C. tubercularis cannot be reliably identified 
from the lectotype (the whitish syntype). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 43 


Fig. 1. A-C. Syntypes of Murex tubercularis Montagu, 1803, Montagu collection, EXEMS 4235 (2 
specimens), mouth of the Ann in Devonshire and coast of Sandwich, Recent: A. Reddish-brown syntype 
(protoconch missing) conforming to the current concept of Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu, 1803); B. 
Whitish syntype designated lectotype of Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu, 1803) by Marshall (1978); C. 
Same, detail of last protoconch whorl. D. EXEMS labels. The upper label reads ‘National Museum, 
Wellington, N.Z. Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu). White specimen designated lectotype by B.A. 
Marshall’. The lower label reads “Tuberculated Horn-Shell. Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu). Britain. 
H. D’Orville. 4235. (Montagu Collection)’. E, F, H. Possible syntype of Murex tubercularis Montagu, 
1803, Montagu’s types, BMNH 20090384, British coast, Recent, proposed herein as neotype of Murex 
tubercularis Montagu, 1803: E. Apertural view; F. Preserved apical whorls; H. detail of F showing 
remnants of subsutural and suprasutural granular microprotuberances. G. Protoconch of Cerithiopsis 
powelli Marshall, 1978 (reproduced from Fig. 13B of Marshall) diameter 0.4 mm. I. Protoconch of the 
lectotype of Cerithiopsis barleei Jeffreys, 1867. J. Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu, 1803) of prevailing 
usage, Tasucu, Turkey, 7 m depth; detail of the protoconch showing remnants of granular microprotu- 
berances (illustrated for comparison). 


44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


4. The lectotype does not conform to the prevailing usage of C. tubercularis 
(Sowerby, 1855, 1859; Jeffreys, 1867, 1869; Bucquoy, Dautzenberg & Dollfus, 1884; 
Watson, 1886; Locard, 1892; 1903; Kobelt, 1908; Lebour, 1933; Thiriot-Quiévreux, 
1969; Fretter & Pilkington, 1970; Parenzan, 1970; Hubendick & Warén, 1972; 
Thiriot-Quiévreux & Rodriguez Babio, 1975; Nordsiek, 1976; Fretter & Graham, 
1982; van Aartsen et al., 1984; Graham, 1988; Cachia et al., 1996; Palazzi & Villari, 
2001; Coppini, 2008; Cecalupo & Robba, 2010). In fact, the protoconch of C. 
tubercularis, as described and/or illustrated by the cited authors, differs markedly in 
having convex whorls throughout, being devoid of axial sculpture and bearing only 
suprasutural and subsutural granular microprotuberances. 

5. Amelia MacLellan found a possible syntype (BMNH 20090384) of Cerithiopsis 
tubercularis in the Natural History Museum, London. She (pers. comm., 2009) 
informed us that ‘it is considered so as the labelling on the specimen is the same as 
other material thought to be Montagu’s types’. The locality of this possible syntype 
is ‘British Coast’. The specimen is nicely preserved and retains the last 2 whorls of 
the larval shell. The protoconch whorls are convex, showing remnants of subsutural 
and suprasutural granular microprotuberances; there is no trace of either axial 
sculpture or carination of the last half-whorl (Fig. 1F, H). These characters fully 
agree with the SEM images and the descriptions of the protoconch of C. tubercularis 
published by some recent workers (Thiriot-Quiévreux & Rodriguez Babio, 1975; 
Nordsiek, 1976; Fretter & Graham, 1982). The teleoconch (Fig. 1E) conforms in 
shape and sculpture to the current concept of C. tubercularis; the colour is slightly 
pale reddish-brown. 

6. From the above, it appears that (1) the two types of Cerithiopsis tubercularis in 
EXEMS belong to two different species, (2) the identity of the lectotype is doubtful, 
and (3) the lectotype is not in taxonomic accord with the prevailing usage of the 
name. We conclude that the existing name-bearing type of C. tubercularis should be 
set aside and a neotype designated in order to maintain stability (Article 75.6 of the 
Code). The reddish-brown syntype in EXEMS is most probably C. tubercularis, but 
it is not suitable for a neotype as it lacks the protoconch (Recommendation 75A of 
the Code). We think it wiser to select the better preserved possible syntype (BMNH 
20090384) as neotype of Cerithiopsis tubercularis. 

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the species 
Murex tubercularis Montagu, 1803 and to designate as neotype the possible 
syntype BMNH 20090384 at the Natural History Museum, London; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name tubercularis 
Montagu, 1803, as published in the binomen Murex tubercularis and as defined 
by the neotype designated in (1) above. 


References 


Bucquoy, E., Dautzenberg, P. & Dollfus, G. 1882-1886. Les Mollusques Marins du Roussillon. 
Tome I. Gastropodes. Pp. 1-84 (1882); pp. 85-196 (1883); pp. 197-342 (1884); pp. 343-418 
(1885); pp. 419-570 (1886) J.-B. Bailli¢re & Fils, Paris. 

Cachia, C., Mifsud, C. & Sammut, P.M. 1996. The marine Mollusca of the Maltese Islands 
(Part Two: Neotaenioglossa). 228 pp. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 45 


Cecalupo, A. & Robba, E. 2010. The identity of Murex tubercularis Montagu, 1803 and 
description of one new genus and two new species of the Cerithiopsidae (Gastropoda: 
Triphoroidea). Bollettino Malacologico, 46: 45-64. 

Chirli, C. 2009. Malacofauna pliocenica Toscana, vol. 7. 98 pp. Published by the author, 
Tavarnelle. 

Coppini, M. 2008. La famiglia Cerithiopsidae H. & A. Adams, 1853. 26 pp. (unnumbered) 
Documenti del Gruppo Malacologico Livornese, online report. 

Forbes, E. & Hanley, S. 1848-1853. A history of British Mollusca and their shells. Vol. 1, 
pp. 1-477 (1848); vol. 2, pp. 1-480 (1849); vol. 3, pp. 1-320 (1850), pp. 321-616 (1851); 
vol. 4, pp. 1-301 (1852-1853) John Van Voorst, London. 

Fretter, V. & Graham, A. 1982. The Prosobranch Molluscs of Britain and Denmark. Part 7 — 
‘Heterogastropoda’ (Cerithiopsacea, Triforacea, Epitoniacea, Eulimacea). The Journal of 
Molluscan Studies, Supplement, 11: 363-434. 

Fretter, V. & Pilkington, C. 1970. Prosobranchia veliger larvae of Taenioglossa and 
Stenoglossa. Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer. Zooplankton, sheets 
129-132 (pp. 1-26). 

Giannuzzi-Savelli, R., Pusateri, F., Palmeri, A. & Ebreo, C. 1999. Atlante delle conchiglie del 
Mediterraneo. Vol. 3 (Caenogastropoda parte 2: Ptenoglossa). 127 pp. Edizioni Evolver 
s.r.l., Roma. 

Giribet, X. & Pefias, Y. 1997. Malacological marine fauna from Garraf coast (NE Iberian 
Peninsula). Jberus, 15: 41-93. 

Glibert, M. 1973. Révision des Gastropoda du Danien et du Montien de la Belgique. I. Les 
Gastropoda du Calcaire de Mons. Mémoires de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de 
Belgique, 173: 1-116. 

Grecchi, G. 1984. Molluschi planctonici e bentonici in sedimenti sapropelitici del Quaternario 
della Dorsale Mediterranea. Bollettino Malacologico, 20: 1-34. 

Hubendick, B. & Waren, A. 1972. Smasnackor fran Svenska vastkusten. 4. Slaktena Laeoco- 
chlis, Triphora, Cerithiella, Aclis, Trophon m.fl. Géteborgs Naturhistoriska Museum, 1972: 
45-50. 

Jeffreys, J.G. 1867. British Conchology, or an account of the Mollusca which now inhabit the 
British Isles and the surrounding seas, vol. IV. 486 pp. John Van Voorst, London. 

Jeffreys, J.G. 1869. British Conchology, or an account of the Mollusca which now inhabit the 
British Isles and the surrounding seas, vol. 5. 258 pp. John Van Voorst, London. 

Jeffreys, J.G. 1885. On the Mollusca procured during the ‘Lightning’ and ‘Porcupine’ 
Expeditions, 1868-70. Part 9. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1885: 
27-63. 

Kobelt, W. 1908. Iconographie der schalentragenden europdischen Meeresconchylien. Vierter 
Band. 172 pp. C.W. Kreidel’s Verlag, Wiesbaden. 

Landau, B., La Perna, R. & Marquet, R. 2006. The Early Pliocene Gastropoda (Mollusca) of 
Estepona, Southern Spain. Part 6: Triphoroidea, Epitonioidea, Eulimoidea. Palaeontos, 
10: 1-96. 

Lebour, M.V. 1933. The life-histories of Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu), C. barleei Jeffreys 
and Triphora perversa (L.). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United 
Kingdom. (N.S. ), 18: 491498. 

Locard, A. 1892. Les coquilles marines des cétes de France. 384 pp. J.-B. Bailliére & Fils, Paris. 

Locard, A. 1903. Les Cerithium et les Cerithiidae des mers d’Europe. Annales de la Societé 
d Agriculture, Sciences et Industrie de Lyon, 10 (1902): 95-128. 

Marshall, B.A. 1978. Cerithiopsidae (Mollusca: Gastropoda) of New Zealand, and provisional 
classification of the family. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 5: 47-120. 

Montagu, G. 1803. Testacea Britannica or Natural History of British Shells, Marine, Land, and 
Fresh-Water. xxxvii, 606 pp. J.S. Hollis, London. 

Nordsiek, F. 1976. Il Genere Cerithiopsis Forbes & Hanley, 1849 nei mari d’Europa. La 
Conchiglia, 85-86: 6-7 & 18. 

Palazzi, S. & Villari, A. 2001. Molluschi e brachiopodi delle grotte sottomarine del 
Taorminese. La Conchiglia, Suppl., 297: 1-56. 


46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


Parenzan, P. 1970. Carta d’identita delle conchiglie del Mediterraneo. Vol. 1 Gasteropodi. 283 
pp. Ed. Bios Taras, Taranto. 

Prki¢é, J. & Mariottini, P. 2009. Description of two new Cerithiopsis from the Croatian coast, 
with comments on the Cerithiopsis tubercularis complex (Gastropoda: Ceritiopsidae). 
Aldrovandia, 5: 3-27. 

Richter, G. & Thorson, G. 1975. Pelagische Prosobranchienlarven des Golfes von Neapel. 
Ophelia, 13: 109-185. 

Sowerby, G.B. 1855. Monographs of genera of shells. Vol. IT. 460 pp. G.B. Sowerby, London. 

Sowerby, G.B. 1859. I/lustrated index of British shells containing figures of all the Recent species. 
I-XV pp. Simpkin, Marshall & Co., London. 

Thiriot-Quiévreux, C. 1969. Caractéristiques morphologiques des véligéres planctoniques de 
gastéropodes de la région de Banyuls-sur-Mer. Vie et Milieu, Série B: Océanographie, 20: 
333-366. 

Thiriot-Quiévreux, C. & Rodriguez Babio, C. 1975. Etude des protoconques de quelques 
prosobranches de la région de Roscoff. Cahiers de Biologie Marine, 16: 135-148. 

Watson, R.B. 1886. On the Cerithiopsides from the Eastern Side of the North Atlantic, with 
three new Species from Madeira. The Journal of the Linnean Society. Zoology, 19: 89-95. 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 198. 
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 


should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 47 


Case 3533 


Neobisitum Chamberlin, 1930 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpiones): proposed 
precedence over Blothrus Schiddte, 1847 


Mark S. Harvey 


Department of Terrestrial Zoology, Western Australian Museum, 
Locked Bag 49, Welshpool DC, Western Australia 6986, Australia 
(e-mail: mark.harvey@museum.wa.gov.au) 


Volker Mahnert 


Muséum dhistoire naturelle, Case postale 6434, CH-1211 Genéve 6, 
Switzerland (e-mail volker.mahnert@wanadoo.fr) 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to 
conserve the widely used pseudoscorpion generic name Neobisium Chamberlin, 1930 
by giving it precedence over the genus-group name Blothrus Schiddte, 1847, which is 
currently used as a subgenus or synonym of Neobisium. The name Neobisium is in 
widespread use for a group of pseudoscorpions found in the western Palaearctic 
region. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; Pseudoscorpiones; NEOBISIIDAE; 
Neobisium; Blothrus; pseudoscorpions; Palaearctic. 


1. The genus-group name Blothrus was proposed by Schiddte (1847, p. 80) for a 
large cave-dwelling pseudoscorpion from Slovenia, B. spelaeus Schiddte, 1847, which 
is the type species by monotypy. Although the original descriptions of both the genus 
and species were fairly brief and undiagnostic, Schiddte (1851la, p. 23) subsequently 
provided a longer description as well as five illustrations. Schiddte’s second paper 
was translated into English (Schiddte, 1851b, p. 148), although the taxonomic 
descriptions were only partly included and only a small subset of the illustrations, 
which were redrafted, were included. Schiddte’s (1847) specimens were apparently 
taken from Luegger Grotte and Adelsberger Grotte (Schiddte stated ‘Luegger- og 
Adelsberger-Hulen’ in Danish), which are nowadays situated in Slovenia. 
Adelsberger Grotte is the German term for an extensive cave system which is 
nowadays referred to by its Slovenian name, Postojnska Jama. The cave is located on 
the outskirts of Postojna village. Luegger Grotte is also known as Lueger Hohle, and 
is situated near Predjama (Kempe et al., 2006), which is situated 8 km WNW of 
Postojnska Jama. The total number of specimens examined by Schiddte (1847) was 
not stated but we are aware of type specimens of B. spelaeus that are lodged in two 
institutions. The Zoological Museum of the University of Copenhagen, Denmark has 
seven large specimens, which are probably adults, and a nymph labelled ‘Adelsberger 
hulen’ stored in ethanol (N. Scharff, in litt.) (ZMUC accession number 8/45) of 
which Chamberlin (1930, p. 11) apparently examined a single female. The Natural 
History Museum, London, U.K. has a single specimen from Adelsberger Grotte with 


48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


the registration number BMNH 1907.3.18.63 (Judson, 1997). A modern description 
of this species was provided by Curvié (1988, p. 52) based on new material from 
Croatia. 

2. The genus Neobisium Chamberlin, 1930 (p. 11) was proposed for a group of 
species that were previously placed within Obisium Illiger, 1798 with the type species 
Obisium muscorum Leach, 1817 (p. 78), by original designation. Chamberlin sug- 
gested that the name was a ‘nom. nov.’ for Obisium but in the modern sense this is 
not the case. Obisium had been used as a valid genus-group name during much of the 
19th and early 20th centuries but had been found by Westwood (1836, p. 10) and 
Kew (1911, p. 52) to be synonymous with Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762, since both claim 
Acarus cancroides Linnaeus, 1758 as their type species. Usage of the name Obisium 
effectively ceased in 1930 with the adoption of the name Neobisium. 

3. Chamberlin (1930) considered Blothrus and Neobisium to be separate genera, but 
Beier (1932) and most subsequent authors have treated Blothrus as a subgenus of 
Neobisium (e.g. Rafalski, 1937, 1967; Beier, 1939, 1953, 1955a, 1956, 1963; Hadzi, 
1940; Vachon, 1947, 1966, 1976; Verner, 1958, 1971; Vachon and Gabbutt, 1964; 
Heurtault-Rossi, 1966; Heurtault, 1968, 1971, 1994; Curtié, 1972; Mahnert, 1972, 
1988; Gulicka, 1977; Leclerc, 1982, 1989; Krumpal, 1983; Harvey, 1991; Duchaé, 
1996; Gardini, 2000; Steup, 2006; Zaragoza, 2007), even though Blothrus antedates 
Neobisium by more than 80 years. 

4. The genus Neobisium is currently the largest known genus of pseudoscorpions 
and contains 227 Recent species and 37 Recent subspecies (Harvey, 2009b), as well 
as two species described from Eocene Baltic amber deposits (Beier, 1955b; Judson, 
2003). It has been divided into six subgenera, N. (Neobisium), N. (Blothrus), N. 
(Ommatoblothrus) Beier, 1956, N. (Heoblothrus) Beier, 1963, N. (Neoccitanobisium ) 
Callaini, 1981 and N. (Pennobisium) Curéié, 1988 (e.g. Beier, 1963; Curéié, 1988; 
Judson, 1992). Curéié (1984) abandoned the use of subgenera within Neobisium, 
arguing that the characters used to define the subgenera were ambiguous and 
subjective, based mostly on perceived levels of troglomorphy. He has been followed 
by other authors (e.g. Schawaller, 1985a, 1989; Schawaller and Dashdamirov, 1988; 
Judson, 2003; Dimitrijevic, 2004, 2009). The abandonment of a subgeneric classifi- 
cation, however, does not affect the present case, as Blothrus remains a senior 
synonym of Neobisium whenever the type species of each genus-group name are 
deemed to be congeneric. 

5. Species of the genus Neobisium are widespread over the western Palaearctic 
region (Harvey, 2009b) including much of continental Europe, various off-shore 
islands such as the Azores and Iceland (e.g. Beier, 1961; Agnarsson, 1998) and 
north-western Africa (e.g. Beier, 1930; Callaini, 1988; Leclerc, 1989; Heurtault, 1990). 
They occur as far east as Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan (Redikorzev, 1949; 
Schawaller, 1989) and the Russian provinces of Krasnoyarskiy Kray and Respublika 
Altay (Schawaller, 1985b), and there is also an introduced population of N. 
carcinoides Hermann, 1804 (p. 118) in Kenya (Mahnert, 1981). 

6. Neobisium has been used as a valid generic name instead of Blothrus by many 
different authors in numerous publications. We have found 135 publications with 39 
senior authors that use the name Neobisium in the title of the publication. These 
papers include taxonomic, ecological and morphological studies; this list is held by 
the Secretariat. Of the more comprehensive reviews of European pseudoscorpions, 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 49 


Neobisium has been used for the faunas of Europe (Beier, 1963), Austria (Mahnert, 
2004), Belgium (Henderickx, 1999), Croatia (Ozimec, 2004), Czech Republic and 
Slovakia (Verner, 1960, 1971), Estonia (Talvi, 2010), mainland France (Delfosse, 
2003), Hungary (Karpathegyi, 2007), Iceland (Agnarsson, 1998), Ireland (Jones, 
1980; Legg & Jones, 1988), Italy (Gardini, 2000), Macedonia (Curéié et al., 2004), 
Montenegro (Curéié et al., 2004), The Netherlands (Tooren, 2005), Poland (Rafalski, 
1967), Serbia (Curéié et al., 2004), Spain and Portugal (Zaragoza, 2007), Sweden 
(Lohmander, 1939), Turkey (Kunt et al., 2008) and the United Kingdom (Jones, 
1980; Legg & Jones, 1988), and in general publications dealing with subterranean 
fauna (e.g. Curéi¢, 1988; Heurtault, 1994). Neobisium is also used as a valid name on 
various websites including Pseudoscorpions of the World (Harvey, 2009b), Fauna 
Europaea (Harvey, 2010) and the Species 2000 Catalogue of Life Checklist (Harvey, 
2009a). 

7. In addition to being a widely used generic name, Neobisium is the type genus of 
NEOBISIIDAE Chamberlin, 1930 and of the superfamily NEOBISIOIDEA Chamberlin, 1930. 
As in the situation with Neobisium, Chamberlin (1930) proposed NEOBISIIDAE as a 
replacement name for OBISIDAE Sundevall, 1833, although oBIsIIDAE is a synonym of 
CHELIFERIDAE, due to the synonymy of Obisium with Chelifer. 

8. Article 23.1 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature clearly states 
that the valid name resulting from the synonymy of two or more genus-group names 
is the oldest valid name among those of its components. Harvey (1985) attempted to 
rectify the situation and proposed that Blothrus be given priority over Neobisium, as 
specified by the Code. This suggestion was met with resounding opposition from 
other pseudoscorpion specialists and Harvey later reverted to the traditional usage of 
Neobisium in his world catalogues of pseudoscorpions (Harvey, 1991, 2009b). Article 
23.9 has provisions for the reversal of precedence without approaching the Commis- 
sion, but in this case Article 23.9.1 does not apply as the senior synonym has been 
used as a valid name since 1899, either at the generic (Chamberlin, 1930, 1931; 
Caporiacco, 1948; Lapschoff, 1940) or subgeneric level (e.g. Beier, 1932, 1963; 
Roewer, 1937; Harvey, 1991; Heurtault, 1994; Gardini, 2000; Zaragoza, 2007). We 
believe that the strict application of the Principle of Priority would cause undue 
confusion, with over 200 species requiring transfer from Neobisium to Blothrus. An 
alternative scenario, to suppress the name Blothrus, would require the transfer of 90 
species into a new subgenus, thus causing considerable nomenclatural instability. 
Therefore, as required by Article 23.9.3, we refer the matter to the Commission to 
give precedence to the younger synonym. 

9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary power to give the name Neobisium Chamberlin, 1930 
precedence over the name Blothrus Schiddte, 1847 whenever the two are 
considered to be congeneric; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) Neobisium Chamberlin, 1930 (gender: neuter), type species Obisium mus- 

corum Leach, 1817 (a junior subjective synonym of Chelifer carcinoides 
Hermann, 1804) by original designation, with the endorsement that it is to 
be given precedence over Blothrus Schiddte, 1847, whenever the two are 
considered to be congeneric; 


50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


(b) Blothrus Schiddte, 1847 (gender: masculine), type species Blothrus spelaeus 
Schiddte, 1847 by monotypy, with the endorsement that it is not to be 
given precedence over Neobisium Chamberlin, 1930, whenever the two are 
considered to be congeneric; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 

(a) spelaeus Schiddte, 1847, as published in the binomen Blothrus spelaeus 
(specific name of the type species of Blothrus Schiddte, 1847); 

(b) carcinoides Hermann, 1804, as published in the binomen Chelifer 
carcinoides, the valid specific name of the type species of Neobisium 
Chamberlin, 1930 (a senior subjective synonym of Obisium muscorum 
Leach, 1817). 


Acknowledgments 


We thank Dr Nikolaj Scharff for providing information on the syntypes of Blothrus 
spelaeus lodged in the Zoological Museum of the University of Copenhagen, 
Denmark. 


References 


Agnarsson, I. 1998. Islenskar langfaetlur og drekar. Fyélrit Natturufraedistofnunar, 35: 1-34. 

Beier, M. 1930. Pseudoscorpione aus Marocco nebst einer Art von der Insel Senafir. Bulletin 
de la Société des Sciences Naturelles du Maroc, 10: 70-77. 

Beier, M. 1932. Pseudoscorpionidea I. Subord. Chthoniinea et Neobisiinea. Tierreich, 57: i-xx, 
1-258. 

Beier, M. 1939. Die H6hlenpseudoscorpione der Balkanhalbinsel. Studien aus dem Gebiete der 
Allgemeinen Karstforschung, der Wissenschaftlichen Héhlenkunde, der Eiszeitforschung und 
den Nachbargebieten, 4(10): 1-83. 

Beier, M. 1953. Neobisium (Blothrus) patrizii, ein neuer Hoehlen-Pseudoscorpion aus 
Mittelitalien. Bollettino della Societa Entomologica Italiana, 83: 139-140. 

Beier, M. 1955a. Neobisium (Blothrus) cerrutii, ein weiterer neuer HOhlen-Pseudoscorpion aus 
Lazio. Fragmenta Entomologica, 2: 25-28. 

Beier, M. 1955b. Pseudoscorpione im baltischen Bernstein aus dem Geologischen Staatsinsti- 
tut in Hamburg. Mitteilungen aus dem Mineralogisch-Geologischen Staatsinstitut in 
Hamburg, 24: 48-54. 

Beier, M. 1956. Ein neuer Blothrus (Pseudoscorp.) aus Sardinien, und ueber zwei Pseudo- 
scorpione des westmediterranen Litorals. Fragmenta Entomologica, 2: 55-63. 

Beier, M. 1961. Pseudoscorpione von den Azoren und Madeira. Boletim do Museu Municipal 
do Funchal, 14: 67-74. 

Beier, M. 1963. Ordnung Pseudoscorpionidea (Afterskorpione). In: Bestimmungsbticher zur 
Bodenfauna Europas, vol. 1. vi, 313 pp. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin. 

Callaini, G. 1988. Gli Pseudoscorpioni del Marocco. (Notulae Chernetologicae, X XVII). 
Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova, 87: 31-66. 

Caporiacco, L. di. 1948. Troglohyphantes zorzii nuova specie cavernicola veronese e notizie su 
altri ragni cavernicoli veronesi. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, 1: 
237-239. 

Chamberlin, J.C. 1930. A synoptic classification of the false scorpions or chela-spinners, with 
a report on a cosmopolitan collection of the same. Part Hl. The Diplosphyronida 
(Arachnida-Chelonethida). Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (10)5: 1-48, 
585-620. 

Chamberlin, J.C. 1931. The arachnid order Chelonethida. Stanford University Publications, 

_ Biological Sciences, 7(1): 1-284. 

Curéi¢, B.P.M. 1972. Neobisium (Blothrus) stankovici, nouvelle espéce de pseudoscorpions 
cavernicoles de la Serbie orientale. Fragmenta Balcanica, 9: 85—96. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 51 


Curéié, B.P.M. 1984. The genus Neobisium Chamberlin, 1930 (Neobisiidae, Pseudoscorpiones, 
Arachnida): on new species from the USSR and the taxonomy of its subgenera. Glasnik 
Muzeja Srpske Zemlje, Beograd (B), 39: 124-153. 

Curtié, B.P.M. 1988. Cave-dwelling pseudoscorpions of the Dinaric karst. 192 pp. Slovenska 
Akademija Znanosti in Umetnosti, Ljubljana. 

Curéié, B.P.M., Dimitrijevicé, R.N. & Legakis, A. 2004. The pseudoscorpions of Serbia, 
Montenegro, and the Republic of Macedonia. 400 pp. Institute of Zoology, Faculty of 
Biology, University of Belgrade, Belgrade & Athens. 

Delfosse, E. 2003. Catalogue préliminaire des Pseudoscorpions de France métropolitaine 
(Arachnida Pseudoscorpiones). Bulletin de Phyllie, 17: 24-48. 

Dimitrijevi¢é, R.N. 2004. Postembryonic development and polymorphism in some pseudo- 
scorpions from the families Chthoniidae and Neobisiidae (Pseudoscorpiones, Arachnida). 
Monographs, Institute of Zoology, Faculty of Biology, University of Belgrade, 10: 1-146. 

Dimitrijevi¢é, R.N. 2009. Neobisium bozidarcurcici (Neobisiidae, Pseudoscorpiones), a new 
endemic cave pseudoscorpion from Montenegro. Archives of Biological Sciences, 
Belgrade, 61: 323-328. 

Duchaé, V. 1996. Uber Neobisium (Blothrus) slovacum (Pseudoscorpiones: Neobisiidae) aus 
der Brzotin — Hohle in der Slowakischen Republik. Klapalekiana, 32: 153-157. 

Gardini, G. 2000. Catalogo degli Pseudoscorpioni d’Italia (Arachnida). Fragmenta Entomo- 
logica, 32, Supplemento: 1-181. 

Geoffroy, E.L. 1762. Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris; dans 
laquelle ces animaux sont rangés suivant un ordre méthodique, vol. 2. Durand, Paris. 
Gulitka, J. 1977. Neobisium (Blothrus) slovacum sp. n., eine neue Art des blinden 
Hohlenafterskorpions aus der Slowakei (Pseudoscorpionida). Annotationes Zoologicae et 

Botanicae, 117: 1-9. ; 

Hadzi, J. 1940. Eine neue Art von Hohlen-Pseudoskorpioniden aus Siidserbien. Neobisium 
(Blothrus) ohridanum sp. n. Glasnik Skopskog Naucnog Drustva, 22: 129-135. 

Harvey, M.S. 1985. The priority of Blothrus Schiddte, 1847, over Neobisium Chamberlin, 1930 
(Neobistidae: Pseudoscorpionida). Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society, 6: 
367-368. 

Harvey, M.S. 1991. Catalogue of the Pseudoscorpionida. vi, 726 pp. Manchester University 
Press, Manchester. 

Harvey, M.S. 2009a. Order Pseudoscorpiones in Bisby, F.A., Roskov, Y.R., Orrell, T.M. et al. 
(Eds.), Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life: 2009 Annual Checklist, Reading, U.K. 
(Accessed on 13 August 2010). 

Harvey, M.S. 2009b. Pseudoscorpions of the World, version 1.2. Western Australian Museum, 
Perth. http://www.museum.wa.gov.au/arachnids/pseudoscorpions/. Accessed on 13 
August 2010. 

Harvey, M.S. 2010. Fauna Europaea: order Pseudoscorpiones. Fauna Europaea version 2.2. 
http://www.faunaeur.org. Accessed on 13 August 2010. 

Hermann, J.F. 1804. Mémoire aptérologique. 144 pp. F.G. Levrault, Strasbourg. 

Henderickx, H. 1999. Naamlijst van de Belgische pseudoschorpioenen (Arachnida Pseudo- 
scorpionida). Bulletin de la Societe Royale Belge d’Entomologie, 135: 66-71. 

Heurtault-Rossi, J. 1966. Description d’une nouvelle espéce: Neobisium (N.) caporiaccoi 
(Arachnides, Pseudoscorpions, Neobisiidae) de la Province de Belluno, en Italie. Bulletin 
du Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle, Paris, (2)38: 606-628. 

Heurtault, J. 1968. Une nouvelle espéce de pseudoscorpion du Gard: Neobisium (N.) vachoni 
(Neobisiidae). Bulletin du Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle, Paris, (2)40: 315-319. 

Heurtault, J. 1971. Une nouvelle espéce cavernicole de Suisse Neobisium (N.) helveticum 
(Arachnide, Pseudoscorpion, Neobisiidae). Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 78: 903-907. 

Heurtault, J. 1990. Les Pseudoscorpions d’Algérie de la collection Biospeologica. Mémoires de 
Biospéologie, 17: 197-202. 

Heurtault, J. 1994. Pseudoscorpions. In Juberthie, C. & Decu, V. (Eds.), Encyclopaedia 
biospeologica, vol. 1. Pp. 185-196. Société de Biospeologie, Moulis & Bucarest. 

Illiger, J.K.W. 1798. Verzeichniss der Kafer Preussens. J.J. Bauer, Halle. 


Sy Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


Jones, P.E. 1980. Provisional atlas of the Arachnida of the British Isles. Part 1. Pseudoscorpi- 
ones. 27 pp. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Monks Wood. 

Judson, M.L.I. 1992. Roncocreagris murphyorum n. sp. and Occitanobisium nanum (Beier) n. 
comb. (Neobisiidae) from Iberia, with notes on the sternal glands of pseudoscorpions 
(Chelonethi). Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society, 9: 26-30. 

Judson, M.L.I. 1997. Catalogue of the pseudoscorpion types (Arachnida: Chelonethi) in the 
Natural History Museum, London. Occasional Papers on Systematic Entomology, 11: 1—S4. 

Judson, M.L.I. 2003. Baltic amber pseudoscorpions (Arachnida, Chelonethi): a new species of 
Neobisium (Neobisiidae) and the status of Obisium rathkii Koch & Berendt. Geodiversitas, 
25: 445-450. 

Karpathegyi, P. 2007. Check list of the Hungarian Pseudoscorpiones. Folia Historico Naturalia 
Musei Matraensis, 31: 91-97. 

Kempe, St., Hubrich, H.-P. & Suckstorff, K. 2006. The history of Postojnska Jama: The 1748 
Joseph Nagel inscription in Jama near Predjama and Postojnska Jama. Acta Carsologica, 
35: 155-162. 

Kew, H.W. 1911. A synopsis of the false scorpions of Britain and Ireland. Proceedings of the 
Royal Irish Academy (B), 29: 38-64. 

Krumpal, M. 1983. Neobisium (N.) vilcekii sp. n., ein neuer Pseudoscorpion aus der 
USSR (Neobisiidae, Pseudoscorpiones). Uber Pseudoscorpioniden-Fauna der UdSSR IV. 
Biologia, 38: 607-612. 

Kunt, K.B., Bayram, A., YaSmur, E.A. & Danisman, T. 2008. Checklist of the pseudoscorpions 
of Turkey (Pseudoscorpionida; Arachnida). Turkish Journal of Arachnology, 1: 70-84. 

Lapschoff, II. 1940. Biospelogica Sovietica. V. [Die Hohlen-Pseudoscorpiones Transkau- 
kasiens]. Byulleten’ Moskovskogo Obshchestva Ispytatelei Prirody, Biologii, n.s., 49: 61-74. 

Leach, W.E. 1817. The zoological miscellany; being descriptions of new or interesting animals, 
vol. 3. Nodder, London. 

Leclerc, P. 1982. Une nouvelle espéce de Pseudoscorpion cavernicole de la Dréme: Neobisium 
(Blothrus) auberti (Pseudoscorpions, Arachnides). Revue Arachnologique, 4: 39-45. 
Leclerc, P. 1989. Neobisium (N.) atlasense nouvelle espéce de Neobisiidae cavernicole du 

Maroc (Pseudoscorpions, Arachnides). Revue Arachnologique, 8: 45-51. 

Legg, G. & Jones, R.E. 1988. Synopses of the British fauna (new series). 40. Pseudoscorpions 
(Arthropoda; Arachnida). 159 pp. Brill/Backhuys, Leiden. 

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 

Lohmander, H. 1939. Zur Kenntnis der Pseudoskorpionfauna Schwedens. Entomologisk 
Tidskrift, 60: 279-323. 

Mahnert, V. 1972. Neobisium (Blothrus) kwartirnikovi nov. spec. (Pseudoscorpionidea) aus 
Bulgarien. Archives des Sciences, Genéve, 24: 383-389. 

Mahnert, V. 1981. Die Pseudoskorpione (Arachnida) Kenyas. I. Neobisiidae und Ideoronci- 
dae. Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 88: 535-559. 

Mahnert, V. 1988. Neobisium carcinoides (Hermann, 1804) (Pseudoscorpionida, Neobisiidae) — 
une espece polymorphe? Comptes Rendus X°”"’ Colloque Europeen Arachnologie. Bulletin 
de la Société de Sciences de Bretagne, 59: 161-174. 

Mahnert, V. 2004. Die Pseudoskorpione Osterreichs (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpiones). Denisia, 
12: 459-471. 

Ozimec, R. 2004. List of Croatian pseudoscorpion fauna (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpiones). 
Natura Croatica, 13: 381-394. 

Rafalski, J. 1937. Neobisium (Neobisium) polonicum nov. spec. Nowy gatunek zaleszczotka 
(Pseudoscorpionidea). Prace Komisji Matematyczano-Pryzyrodniczej, Poznanskie 
Towarzystwo Przyjaciol Nauk B, 8: 159-172. 

Rafalski, J. 1967. Zaleszczotki. Pseudoscorpionidea. In Katalog Fauny Polski, vol. 32 (1). 
Pp. 1-34. Polska Akademia Nauk, Warszawa. 

Redikorzey, V. 1949. [Pseudoscorpionidea of Central Asia]. Travaux de I’Institute de 
Zoologique de I’ Académie Sciences de !U.R.S.S., 8: 638-668. 

Roewer, C.F. 1937. Chelonethi oder Pseudoskorpione in Bronns, H.G. (Ed.), Bronn’s Klassen 
und Ordnungen des Tierreichs, vol. 51V)(6)(1). Pp. 161-320. Akademische Verlagsgesells- 
chaft M.B.H., Leipzig. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 53 


Schawaller, W. 1985a. Liste griechischer Neobisiidae mit neuen Hohlenfunden in Epirus, auf 
Samos und Kreta (Arachnida: Pseudoscorpiones). Stuttgarter Beitrdge zur Naturkunde 
(A), 386: 1-8. 

Schawaller, W. 1985b. Pseudoskorpione aus der Sowjetunion (Arachnida: Pseudoscorpiones). 
Stuttgarter Beitrdge zur Naturkunde (A), 385: 1-12. 

Schawaller, W. 1989. Pseudoskorpione aus der Sowjetunion, Teil 3 (Arachnida: Pseudo- 
scorpiones). Stuttgarter Beitrdge zur Naturkunde (A), 440: 1-30. 

Schawaller, W. & Dashdamirov, S. 1988. Pseudoskorpione aus dem Kaukasus, Teil 2 
(Arachnida). Stuttgarter Beitrdge zur Naturkunde (A), 415: 1-51. 

Schiddte, J.C. 1847. Underségelser over den underjordiske Fauna i Hulerne1 Krain og Istrien. 
Oversigt over det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Forhandlingar, 6: 75-81. 

Schiéddte, J.C. 185la. Bidrag til den underjordiske Fauna. Kongeligt Dansk Videnskabernes 
Selskabs Skrifter, Kjabenhavn, (5)2: 1-39. 

Schiédte, J.C. 1851b. Specimen faunae subterraneae; being a contribution towards the subterranean 
fauna. Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London, New Series, 1: 134-157. 

Steup, B. 2006. Zur Morphologie von WNeobisium carcinoides (Hermann, 1804) aus 
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Arachnida: Cuelpngtay Archiv der Freunde der Naturges- 
chichte in Mecklenburg, 45: 93-111. 

Sundevall, C.J. 1833. Conspectus arachnidum. 39 pp. C.F. Berling, Londini Gothorum. 

Talvi, T. 2010. Puhtu ebaskorpionilised (Arachnida: Pseudoscorpiones). Estonia Maritima, 8: 
127-132. 

Tooren, D. van den. 2005. Naamlijst en determinatiesleutel tot de Pseudoschorpioenen van Neder- 
land (Arachnida: Pseudoscorpiones). Nederlandse Faunistische Mededelingen, 23: 91-102. 
Vachon, M. 1947. A propos de quelques Pseudoscorpions (Arachnides) des cavernes de France, 
avec description d’une espéce nouvelle: Neobisium (Blothrus) tuzeti. Bulletin du Muséum 

National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris, (2)19: 318-321. 

Vachon, M. 1966. Quelques remarques sur le genre Neobisium J.C. Chamberlin (Arachnides, 
Pseudoscorpions, Neobisiidae) 4 propos d’une espéce nouvelle Neobisium (N.) gineti, 
habitant les cavernes de l’est de la France. Bulletin du Muséum National d Histoire 
Naturelle, Paris, (2)37: 645-658. 

Vachon, M. 1976. Quelques remarques sur les Pseudoscorpions (Arachnides) cavernicoles de la 
Suisse a propos de la description de deux espéces nouvelles: Neobisium (N.) aelleni et 
Neobisium (N.) strausaki. Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 83: 243-253. 

Vachon, M. & Gabbutt, P.D. 1964. Sur l’utilisation des soies flagellaires chélicériennes dans la 
distinction des genres Neobisium J.C. Chamberlin et Roncus L. Koch (Arachnides, 
Pseudoscorpions, Neobisiidae). Importance d’une connaissance précise de la genése d’un 
caractére pour en déceler la valeur taxonomique. Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de 
France, 89: 174-188. 

Verner, P.H. 1958. Neobisium (Neobisium) crassifemoratum (Beier), ein neuer Pseudoskorpion 
fiir die Fauna der Tschechoslowakei. Acta Faunistica Entomologica Musei Nationalis 
Pragae, 3: 109-110. 

Verner, P.H. 1960. Piispévek k poznani stirkii Ceskoslovenska. Vestnik Ceskoslovenské 
Zoologické Spolecnosti v Praze, 24: 167-169. 

Verner, P.H. 1971. Stirci — Pseudoscorpionidea, Pp.19—-31 in Daniel, M. & Cerny, V. (Eds.), 
Klié Zvireny CSSR, vol. 4. Ceskoslovenka Akademie Véd, Praha. 

Westwood, J.O. 1836. Cheliferidae in Partington, C.F. (Ed.), British cyclopaedia of natural 
history, vol. 2. P. 10. Orr & Smith, London. 

Zaragoza, J.A. 2007. Catalogo de los Pseudoescorpiones de la Peninsula Ibérica e Islas 
Baleares (Arachnida: Pseudoscorpiones). Revista Ibérica de Aracnologia, 13: 3-91. 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 198. 
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 


should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


Case 3537 


ATHETINI Casey, 1910 and GEOSTIBINA Seevers, 1978 (Insecta, 
Coleoptera, STAPHYLINIDAE, ALEOCHARINAE): proposed conservation 


Vladimir I. Gusarov 


National Center for Insect Biodiversity and National Center for 
Biosystematics, Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, PO Box 1172 
Blindern, NO-031&8 Oslo, Norway (e-mail: vladimir.gusarov@nhm.uio.no) 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to 
conserve the family-group names ATHETINI Casey, 1910 and GEOSTIBINA Seevers, 1978 
for a group of rove beetles. The names are threatened by a little used senior synonym 
CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908. The name ATHETINI Casey, 1910 has become widely 
accepted and is in prevailing usage. The names CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 (Insecta, 
Coleoptera) and CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845 (Insecta, Diptera) are homonyms 
resulting from similarity of the names of their type genera, Callicerus Gravenhorst, 
1802 and Callicera Panzer, 1809, respectively. This homonymy should be removed as 
required by Article 55.3.1 of the Code. It is proposed that the name CALLICERINI 
Jakobson, 1908 be suppressed. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; sTAPHYLINIDAE; ALEOCHARINAE; 
CALLICERINI; CALLICERINA; ATHETINI; ATHETINA; GEOSTIBINA; Callicerus; Atheta; Geo- 
stiba;, Callicerus obscurus; Atheta graminicola; Geostiba circellaris; Diptera; SYRPHIDAE; 
Callicera; Callicera aenea; rove beetles; Palaeacrtic. 


1. Panzer (1809, p. 17) established the genus Callicera for a species of fly. The type 
species is Bibio aenea Fabricius, 1777 (p. 305), by monotypy. 

2. Rondani (1845, p. 451) established the family-group name CALLICERINI (spelled 
as Calicerellae) at the rank of ‘linea’ for a group of syrphids, without listing any 
genera. Considering the stem of the name Calicerellae and Rondani’s subsequent 
publications (e.g. 1856, p. 55) it is clear that he based his family-group name on the 
genus Callicera Panzer, 1809. 

3. The name CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845 is currently in use as a valid name for a 
tribe of syrphids (e.g. Sabrosky, 1999, p. 72; Rotheray & Gilbert, 1999, p. 4; Cheng 
et al., 2000, p. 147; Stahls et al., 2003, p. 436; Bartsch, 2009, p. 42). 

4. Gravenhorst (1802, p. 65) established the genus Callicerus for a species of 
staphylinid beetle. The type species is Callicerus obscurus Gravenhorst, 1802 (p. 66), 
by monotypy. 

5. In a key to subfamilies and tribes of rove beetles, Jakobson (1908, p. 448) 
established the tribe CALLICERINI (spelled as Callicerina) without listing any genera 
included in that tribe. The 1908 publication is part 6 of a work published in eleven 
parts. In the next part of that work (part 7) Jakobson (1909, p. 537) used the name 
CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 (spelled as Callicerina) as the valid name for the tribe 
MYRMEDONIINI Thomson, 1867 (p. 209), without explaining why he considered the 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 55 


senior name to be invalid. The name CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 was overlooked by 
subsequent staphylinid researchers and was not used again until 1967. 

6. Thomson (1858, p. 36) established the genus Atheta for a group of staphylinid 
beetles. The type species is Aleochara graminicola Gravenhorst, 1806 (p. 176), by 
monotypy, as fixed by a ruling in Opinion 600 (BZN 18: 241-243, August 1961). The 
name Atheta Thomson, 1858 was placed on the Official List of Generic names in 
Zoology by a ruling in Opinion 600 (BZN 18: 241-243, August 1961). 

7. Casey (1910, p. 2) established the tribe ATHETINI (spelled as Athetae) for the 
genus Atheta Thomson, 1858 and related genera of aleocharine staphylinids. 

8. Thomson (1858, p. 33) established the rove beetle genus Geostiba. The type 
species by monotypy is Aleochara circellaris Gravenhorst, 1806 (p. 155), fixed by a 
ruling in Opinion 2098 (BZN 62: 43-44, March 2005). The name Geostiba Thomson, 
1858 was placed on the Official List of Generic names in Zoology by a ruling in 
Opinion 2098 (BZN 62: 43-44, March 2005). 

8. Seevers (1978, p. 126) established the subtribe GEosTIBINA for Geostiba Thomson, 
1858 and six additional genera of aleocharine staphylinids. 

9. The name CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 is a junior homonym of the name 
CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845, as a result of similarity between the names of their type 
genera, Callicerus Gravenhorst, 1802 and Callicera Panzer, 1809, respectively. The 
senior name is a valid name currently in use, and therefore Article 55.3.1.1 does not 
apply. According to Article 55.3.1 the case must be referred to the Commission for 
a ruling to remove the homonymy. Considering that the name CALLICERINI Rondani, 
1845 is the senior homonym and valid name currently in use, an emendation of 
spelling of the name CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845 would not promote the stability of 
nomenclature and should be avoided. Whatever course of action is taken, it should 
focus on the name CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908. In order to propose a solution 
promoting the stability of the rove beetle nomenclature, the recent use of the 
family-group names ATHETINI, CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 and GEOSTIBINA must be 
examined, because the names ATHETINI and CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 are usually 
treated as synonyms at the rank of tribe (but not subtribe), while CALLICERINA 
Jakobson, 1908 and GEosTIBINA have been treated as synonyms at the rank of subtribe 
(see 14 and 15). 

10. Horion (1967, pp. iii, 220) used the tribe name CALLICERINI (cited ‘sensu Lohse 
1. 1. 1966’) without referring to Jakobson’s earlier use of that name (Jakobson, 1908, 
1909), but without explicitly introducing the name as new either. Horion was aware 
of Jakobson’s works (1908, 1909) and listed them in references. As interpreted by 
Newton & Thayer (1992, p. 47) Horion introduced a new name CALLICERINI Horion, 
1967. An alternative interpretation could be that Horion used the name CALLICERINI 
Jakobson, 1908. According to the list of references in Horion’s work, ‘Lohse i. 1. 
1966’ is the manuscript of the work which was scheduled to be published in 1969, and 
was in fact published in 1974 (Lohse, 1974; Benick & Lohse, 1974). 

11. Lohse (1969, pp. 173, 174, 175) used the name CALLICERINI for a tribe 
accommodating most of the Central European genera formerly placed in MYRMEDO- 
NIINI Thomson, 1867. He argued that CALLICERINI and not ATHETINI should be used as 
the valid name for the tribe, because Callicerus is the oldest genus name in that tribe. 
This line of argument is not justified by the Code. Lohse (1969) did not refer to 
Jakobson’s (1908, 1909) or Horion’s (1967) earlier use of the name CALLICERINI, nor 


56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


did he explicitly introduce the name CALLICERINI as new. As interpreted by Newton & 
Thayer (1992, p. 47) Lohse introduced a new name CALLICERINI Lohse, 1969. An 
alternative interpretation could be that Lohse used the name CALLICERINI Jakobson, 
1908 or CALLICERINI Horion, 1967. 

12. In a part of the work referred to by Horion (1967) as ‘Lohse 1966 i. 1.’, Benick 
& Lohse (1974, p. 72) used the tribe name CALLICERINI as valid and ATHETINI (spelled 
as Athetae) as its invalid synonym, without providing any explanation for this 
decision. The work by Benick & Lohse (1974) is widely used, as it contains the 
most complete and up-to-date keys to Central European genera and species of 
the tribe. Immediately after the publication of that work, the tribe name 
CALLICERINI began to be frequently used as valid. This practice continued until 
1990-1991, when most taxonomists switched to using ATHETINI as the valid name for 
the tribe (see 14). 

13. Newton & Thayer (1992) drew attention to homonymy of the names 
CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 (Coleoptera) and CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845 (Diptera), 
pointing out that the case must be referred to the Commission and suggesting that the 
Commission could either suppress the junior name or change the stem of one 
homonym. Newton & Thayer (1992) further demonstrated that suppression or 
non-suppression of the name CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 might affect the validity of 
the much more widely used family-group name ATHETINI Casey, 1910, and argued 
that for rove beetles the relative merit of the two alternative solutions to the problem 
posed by the homonymy depends on the taxonomic situation within the group. They 
left it to the specialists in aleocharine rove beetles to submit an appropriate 
application to the Commission. 

14. At the rank of tribe the names CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 and ATHETINI have 
always been treated as synonyms, whether explicitly (e.g. by listing both names as 
synonyms) or implicitly (e.g. by listing the type genus of one of the two tribes as a 
member of the other). After the use of the rove beetle name CALLICERINI had been 
resumed by Horion (1967), Lohse (1969) and Benick & Lohse (1974), it was used as 
a valid tribe name in at least 37 papers by at least 10 authors during the period 
between 1975 and 2010 (e.g. Kistner, 1976, p. 83; Yosii & Sawada, 1976, p. 12; 
Muona, 1979, p. 23; Pace, 1982, p. 75; 1991, p..136;' Kofler & Benick; (1983, p: 146; 
Haghebaert, 1990, p. 91; Stourac & Krasensky, 2002, p. 263; a full list has been 
submitted to the Commission Secretariat). In three additional papers (Lohse, 1989, 
p. 199; Lohse et al., 1990, p. 123; Elven et al., 2010, p. 87) it was used as a valid 
subtribe but not tribe name. During the same period of time, the name ATHETINI was 
used as valid tribe name in at least 93 papers by at least 22 authors (in fact, many 
more) (e.g. Pace, 1983a, p. 185; 1993, p. 72; 2009, p. 26; Lohse & Smetana, 1985, 
p. 281; Lohse et al., 1990, p. 123; Ahn & Ashe, 1992, p. 347; Assing, 2001, p. 252; 
Gusarov, 2004, p. 14; a full list has been submitted to the Commission Secretariat). 
Further, after 1991 the name CALLICERINI was used as valid only in 2 papers by 3 
authors, while the name ATHETINI was used as the valid tribe name in at least 89 
papers by 21 authors, including the widely used Palaearctic catalogue (Smetana, 
2004, p. 362). This means that the stability of nomenclature will be better served by 
suppressing the name CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908, than by simply emending it to 
remove the homonymy with the name CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845. If the name 
CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 were emended, it would become the oldest available 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 57 


name for the tribe, and the much more widely used name ATHETINI would become 
invalid. 

15. In the very few cases (6 papers by 11 authors) where the name CALLICERINA 
Jakobson, 1908 was used at the rank of subtribe, whether as valid (Muona, 1979, 
p. 23; Pace, 1985b, p. 170 (spelled as Callicerinae); Lohse, 1989, p. 199; Lohse et al., 
1990, p. 123; Elven et al., 2010, p. 87), or invalid (Newton & Thayer, 1992, p. 47), it 
was always treated as a subtribe separate from ATHETINA. Therefore, a name for the 
subtribe that includes the genus Callicerus but not Atheta is still needed. As pointed 
out by Newton & Thayer (1992, p. 47) another available name exists for this subtribe, 
GEOSTIBINA Seevers, 1978. Several papers suggest (e.g. Yosii & Sawada, 1976; Muona, 
1979) that the genera Callicerus and Geostiba are related, and it is highly unlikely that 
they will ever be placed in different subtribes. That means that the family-group name 
that includes Callicerus, but not Geostiba, will not be needed. At the rank of subtribe, 
the name GEOSTIBINA has been used as valid name in 9 papers by 11 authors (Seevers, 
1978, p. 126; Pace 1983b, p. 97; 1984a, p. 316; 1984b, p. 215; 1985a, p. 98; Newton 
& Thayer, 1992, p. 47; Newton et al., 2000, p. 370; Gouix & Klimaszewski, 2007, 
p. 97; Elven et al., 2010, p. 87). Considering the history of usage of CALLICERINA and 
GEOSTIBINA, the stability of nomenclature will be better served if the name CALLICERINI 
Jakobson, 1908 is suppressed altogether, rather than emended to remove homonymy 
with CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845, even with the endorsement that CALLICERINI 
Jakobson, 1908 is not to be given priority over the family-group name ATHETINI 
Casey, 1910. 

16. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary power to suppress for the purposes of both the Principle of 

Priority and the Principle of Homonymy the following names: 

(a) CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908; 

(b) CALLICERINI Horion, 1967; 

(Cc) CALLICERINI Lohse, 1969; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: 

(a) Callicera Panzer, 1809 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Bibio 
aenea Fabricius, 1777; 

(b) Callicerus Gravenhorst, 1802 (gender: masculine), type species by 
monotypy Callicerus obscurus Gravenhorst, 1802; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following 

names: 

(a) aenea Fabricius, 1777, as published in the binomen Bibio aenea Fabricius, 
1777 (specific name of the type species of Callicera Panzer, 1809); 

(b) obscurus Gravenhorst, 1802, as published in the binomen Callicerus 
obscurus Gravenhorst, 1802 (specific name of the type species of Callicerus 
Gravenhorst, 1802); 

(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following 

names: 

(a) CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845, type genus Callicera Panzer, 1809 (Insecta, 
Diptera); 

(b) ATHETINI Casey, 1910, type genus Atheta Thomson, 1858 (Insecta, Cole- 
optera); 


58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


(Cc) GEOSTIBINA Seevers, 1978, type genus Geostiba Thomson, 1858 (Insecta, 

Coleoptera); 
(5) to place on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in 

Zoology the following names: 

(a) CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 (junior homonym of CALLICERINI Rondani, 
1845), as suppressed in (1) (a) above; 

(b) CALLICERINI Horion, 1967 (junior homonym of CALLICERINI Rondani, 
1845), as suppressed in (1) (b) above; 

(c) CALLICERINI Lohse, 1969 Gunior homonym of CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845), 
as suppressed in (1) (c) above. 


Acknowledgements 


I am greatly indebted to Al Newton, Volker Assing, Chris Thompson and Thomas 
Pape for comments on a draft of this petition, and to Alexey Solodovnikov for his 
help in obtaining some references. I am grateful to an anonymous Commissioner for 
reviewing the manuscript. 


References 


Ahn, K-J. & Ashe J.S. 1992. Revision of the intertidal aleocharine genus Pontomalota 
Casey (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) with a discussion of its phylogenetic relationships. 
Entomologica Scandinavica, 23: 347-359. 

Assing, V. 2001. A revision of Callicerus Gravenhorst, 1802, Pseuwdosemiris Machulka, 1935, 
and Saphocallus Sharp, 1888 (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Aleocharinae, Athetini). Beitrdge 
zur Entomologie, 51(2): 247-334. 

Bartsch, H. 2009. Tvdvingar: Blomflugor. Diptera: Syrphidae: Eristalinae & Microdontinae. 
Nationalnyckeln till Sveriges flora och fauna. 478 pp. Artdatabanken, Uppsala. 

Benick, G. & Lohse, G.A. 1974. 14. Tribus: Callicerini (Athetae). Pp. 72-220 in Freude, H.., 
Harde, K.W. & Lohse, G.A. (Eds.), Die Kafer Mitteleuropas. Band 5, Staphylinidae IT 
(Hypocyphtinae und Aleocharinae). Pselaphidae. Goecke & Evers Verlag, Krefeld. 

Casey, T.L. 1910. New species of the staphylinid tribe Myrmedoniini. Memoirs on the 
Coleoptera I. Pp.1-183. The New Era Printing Company, Lancaster. 

Cheng, X., Lii, J, Huang, C., Zhou, H., Dai, Z & Zhang, G. 2000. Determination of 
phylogenetic position of Pipizini (Diptera: Syrphidae): based on molecular biological and 
morphological data. Science in China (Series C), 43(2): 146-156. 

Elven, H., Bachmann, L. & Gusarov, V.I. 2010. Phylogeny of the tribe Athetini (Coleoptera: 
Staphylinidae) inferred from mitochondrial and nuclear sequence data. Molecular 
Phylogenetics and Evolution, 37: 84-100. 

Fabricius, J.C. 1777. Genera insectorum: eorumque characteres naturales secundam numerum, 
figuram, situm et proportionem, omnium partium oris adiecta mantissa specierum nuper 
detectarum. (xvi), 310 pp. Litteris Mich. Friedr. Bartschii, Chilonii [= Kiel]. 

Gouix, N. & Klimaszewski, J. 2007. Catalogue of aleocharine rove beetles of Canada and Alaska 
(Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Aleocharinae). 165 pp. Pensoft, Sofia & Moscow. 

Gravenhorst, J.L.C. 1802. Coleoptera Microptera Brunsvicensia nec non Exoticorum quotquot 
exstant in collectionibus Entomologorum Brunsvicensium. \xvi, 207 pp. C. Reichard, 
Brunswick. 

Gravenhorst, J.L.C. 1806. Monographia Coleopterorum Micropterorum. xvi, 248 pp. Henrich 
Dieterich, Gottingen. 

Gusaroy, V.I. 2004. A revision of the genus Lypoglossa Fenyes, 1918 (Coleoptera: Staphylini- 
dae: Aleocharinae). Zootaxa, 747: 1-36. 

Haghebaert, G. 1990. Plataraea verbekei sp. n., a new Callicerini from Romania (Coleoptera, 
Staphylinidae, Aleocharinae). Bulletin et Annales de la Société Royale Belge 
d Entomologie, 126: 91-93. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 oo 


Horion, A. 1967. Faunistik der Mitteleuropdischen Kafer. Band XI: Staphylinidae. 3. Teil: 
Habrocerinae bis Aleocharinae (ohne Subtribus Athetae). xxiv, 419 pp. Uberlingen- 
Bodensee. 

Jakobson, G.G. 1908. Zhuki Rossii i Zapadnoi Yevropy. Rukovodstvo k opredeleniyu zhukoyv. 
Vypusk 6. Pp. 401-480, pls. 29, 34, 43, 47-51. A.F. Devrien, Sankt-Peterburg. 

Jakobson, G.G. 1909. Zhuki Rossii i Zapadnoi Yevropy. Rukovodstvo k opredeleniyu zhukov. 
Vypusk 7. Pp. 481-560, pls. 52, 54-58, 60, 61. A.F. Devrien, Sankt-Peterburg. 

Kistner, D.H. 1976. Revision and reclassification of the genus Goniusa Casey with a larval 
description and ant host records (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Sociobiology, 2(1): 83-95. 

Kofler, A. & Benick G. 1983. Sechster Beitrag zur Kaferfauna des Lechtales (Tirol, Osterreich) 
(Insecta: Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Berichte des Naturwissenschaftlich-Medizinischen 
Vereins in Innsbruck, 70: 145-154. 

Lohse, G.A. 1969. Vorschlage zur Anderung der Aleocharinensystematik (Coleoptera: 
Staphylinidae). Pp. 169-175 in Bericht tiber die 10. Wanderversammlung deutscher 
Entomologen, 15. bis 19. September 1965 in Dresden. Deutsche Akademie der Landwirt- 
schaftswissenschaften zu Berlin, Berlin. 

Lohse, G.A. 1974. 22. U.F.: Aleocharinae. Pp. 11-304 in Freude, H., Harde, K.W. & Lohse, 
G.A. (Eds.), Die Kafer Mitteleuropas. Band 5, Staphylinidae IT (Hypocyphtinae und 
Aleocharinae). Pselaphidae. Goecke & Evers Verlag, Krefeld. 

Lohse, G.A. 1989. Erganzungen und Berichtigungen zu Freude-Harde-Lohse ‘Die Kafer 
Mitteleuropas’ Band 5 (1974). Pp. 185-243 in Lohse, G.A. & Lucht, W.H. Die Kéfer 
Mitteleuropas. 1. Supplementband mit Katalogteil. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld. 

Lohse, G.A., Klimaszewski, J. & Smetana, A. 1990. Revision of Arctic Aleocharinae of North 
America (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). The Coleopterists Bulletin, 44(2): 121-202. 

Lohse, G.A. & Smetana, A. 1985. Revision of the types of species of Oxypodini and Athetini 
(sensu Seevers) described by Mannerheim and Maklin from North America (Coleoptera: 
Staphylinidae). The Coleopterists Bulletin, 39(3): 281-300. 

Muona, J. 1979. Staphylinidae. Pp. 14-28 in Silfverberg, H. Enumeratio Coleopterorum 
Fennoscandiae et Daniae. Helsingin Hy6nteisvaihtoyhdistys, Helsinki. 

Newton. A.F. & Thayer, M.K. 1992. Current classification and family-group names in 
Staphyliniformia (Coleoptera). Fieldiana: Zoology, New Series, 67: i-iv, 1-92 pp. 

Newton, A.F., Thayer, M.K., Ashe, J.S. & Chandler, D.S. 2000. Staphylinidae Latreille, 1802. 
Pp. 272-418 in Arnett, R.H. & Thomas, M.C. (Eds.), American beetles. Vol. 1. 
Archostemata, Myxophaga, Adephaga, Polyphaga: Staphyliniformia. CRC Press, Boca 
Raton, Florida. 

Pace, R. 1982. Studio su alcune specie iberische e magrebine di Atheta del sottogenere 
Microdota Muls. & Rey (Coleoptera Staphylinidae). Giornale Italiano di Entomologia, 1: 
73-83. 

Pace, R. 1983a. Il genere Tropimenelytron Scheerpeltz (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Nowvelle 
Revue d’Entomologie, 13(2): 185-190. 

Pace, R. 1983b. Aleocharinae orofile del Venezuela raccolte dal prof. Franz. I. Bolitocharinae 
& Callicerini Geostibae (Coleoptera Staphylinidae). Bollettino della Societa Entomologica 
Italiana, Genova, 115(4—7): 91-102. 

Pace, R. 1984a. Aleocharinae dell’Himalaya. LI. Contributo alla conoscenza delle Aleochari- 
nae (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Annales de la Société Entomologique de France (N.S. ), 
20(3): 309-339. 

Pace, R. 1984b. Nuove Aleocharinae microftalme mediterranee e dell’Iran, del Muséum 
d’Histoire Naturelle di Ginevra (Coleoptera Staphylinidae). Archives des Sciences 
(Genéve), 37(2): 211-219. 

Pace, R. 1985a. Aleocharinae riportate dall’Himalaya dal Prof. Franz. Parte I. (Coleoptera 
Staphylinidae). Nouvelle Revue d’Entomologie (N. S.), 2(1): 91-105. 

Pace, R. 1985b. Aleocharinae dell’Himalaya raccolte da Guillaume de Rougemont (Coleop- 
tera Staphylinidae). Bollettino del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, 12: 165-191. 

Pace, R. 1991. Aleocharinae dello Yemen (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Bollettino del Museo 
Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, 15: 125—150. 


60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


Pace, R. 1993. Aleocharinae della Cina (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Bollettino del Museo 
Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, 17 [1990]: 69-126. 

Pace, R. 2009. Aleocharinae del Cile raccolte dal Dr P.M. Giachino (Coleoptera, Staphylini- 
dae). Lavori — Societa Veneziana di Scienze Naturali, 34: 25-32. 

Panzer, G.W.F. 1809. Faunae insectorum Germanicae initiae oder Deutschlands Insecten. Heft 
104. 24 pp., 24 pls. Felssecker, Nurnberg. 

Rondani, C. 1845. Ordinamento sistematico dei generi italiani degli insetti ditter1. Nuovi Annali 
delle Scienze Naturali, Bologna, (2)2 [1844]: 443-459. 

Rondani, C. 1856. Dipterologiae Italicae prodromus, vol. 1. 228 pp. A. Stoschi, Parma. 

Rotheray, G. & Gilbert, F. 1999. Phylogeny of Palaearctic Syrphidae (Diptera): evidence from 
larval stages. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 127: 1-112. 

Sabrosky, C.W. 1999. Family-group names in Diptera. Myia, 10: 2-360. 

Seevers, C.H. 1978. A generic and tribal revision of the North American Aleocharinae 
(Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Fieldiana: Zoology, 71: i—vi, 1-275. 

Smetana, A. 2004. Subfamily Aleocharinae Fleming, 1821. Pp. 353-494 in Lobl, I. & Smetana, 
A. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera, vol. 2. Hydrophyloidea—Histeroidea— 
Staphylinoidea. Apollo Books, Stenstrup. 

Stourac, P. & Krasensky, P. 2002. Faunistic records from the Czech Republic — 156. 
Coleoptera: Staphylinidae, Omaliinae: Omaliini, Oxytelinae: Oxytelini, Staphylininae: 
Staphylinini, Tachyporinae: Tachyporini, Aleocharinae: Homalotini, Aleocharinae: 
Bolitocharini, Aleocharinae: Callicerini. Klapalekiana, 38(3—4): 263-265. 

Stahls, G., Hippa, H., Rotherau, G., Muona, J & Gilbert, F. 2003. Phylogeny of Syrphidae 
(Diptera) inferred from combined analysis of molecular and morphological characters. 
Systematic Entomology, 28: 433-450. 

Thomson, C.G. 1858. Férsdk till uppstallning af Sveriges Staphyliner. Ofversigt af Kongl. 
Vetenskaps-Akademiens Forhandlingar, 15: 27-40. 

Thomson, C.G. 1867. Skandinaviens Coleoptera, synoptiskt bearbetade, vol. 9. 408 pp. 
Lundbergska Boktryckeriet, Lund. 

Yosii, R. & Sawada, K. 1976. Studies on the genus Atheta Thomson and its allies (Coleoptera, 
Staphylinidae). II: Diagnostic characters of genera and subgenera with description of 
representative species. Contributions from the Biological Laboratory, Kyoto University, 
25(1): 11-140. 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 270. 
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 


should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 61 


Case 3539 


Sturmia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Senometopia Macquart, 1834 and 
Drino Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863 (Insecta, Diptera, TACHINIDAE): 
proposed conservation of usage 


James E. O’Hara 


Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 960 Carling Avenue, K.W. Neatby 
Building, Ottawa, Ontario, K]1A 0C6, Canada 
(e-mail: james.ohara@agr.gc.ca) 


Neal L. Evenhuis 


J. Linsley Gressitt Center for Entomological Research, Bishop Museum, 
1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817-2704, U.S.A. 
(e-mail: NealE@bishopmuseum.org) 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 70.2 of the Code, is to 
conserve the current usage of the names Sturmia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, 
Senometopia Macquart, 1834 and Drino Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863 for three well- 
established genera of tachinid flies. The type species of Sturmia has long been 
assumed to be Sturmia vanessae Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 and the type species of 
Senometopia Macquart, 1834 has long been assumed to be Carcelia aurifrons 
Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830. However, the correct type species for both Sturmia and 
Senometopia is Sturmia atropivora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, which is currently 
recognised as a valid species of Drino. Acceptance of S. atropivora as the type species 
of Sturmia and Senometopia would change the current concept of those genera to that 
of Drino, and the names of the current genera Sturmia and Senometopia would 
change to those of the next available genus-group names. To avoid the nomenclatural 
instability that would result from following the Principle of Priority, it is proposed 
that all type fixations for Sturmia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 prior to that of Sturmia 
vanessae Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 by Robineau-Desvoidy (1863) be set aside, along 
with all type fixations for Senometopia Macquart, 1834 prior to that of Carcelia 
aurifrons Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 by Townsend (1916). 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Diptera; TACHINIDAE; Sturmia; Senometopia; 
Drino; Sturmia vanessae; Carcelia aurifrons; Sturmia atropivora; tachinid flies; 
cosmopolitan. 


1. Robineau-Desvoidy (1830, p. 171) proposed the genus Sturmia for four 
new species: S. atropivora Robineau-Desvoidy, S. floricola Robineau-Desvoidy, S. 
concolor Robineau-Desvoidy and S. vanessae Robineau-Desvoidy. A type species 
was not designated. 

2. Desmarest in d’Orbigny (1848, p. 77) designated Sturmia atropivora Robineau- 
Desvoidy, 1830 as the type species of Sturmia. This designation was overlooked by 
subsequent authors until relatively recently. 


62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


3. Robineau-Desvoidy (1863, p. 888) designated Sturmia vanessae Robineau- 
Desvoidy, 1830 as the type species of Sturmia. The universally-accepted concept of 
Sturmia is based on this type species designation. Sturmia vanessae is currently 
treated as a junior subjective synonym of Tachina bella Meigen, 1824; the accepted 
valid name of this taxon is Sturmia bella. 

4. Macquart (1834, p. 296) proposed the genus Senometopia for 17 previously 
described species, including S. atropivora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830. A type species 
was not designated. 

5. Stephens in Richardson (1838, p. 478) designated Sturmia atropivora Robineau- 
Desvoidy, 1830 as the type species of Senometopia. As with Sturmia, this designation 
was overlooked by subsequent authors until relatively recently. 

6. Townsend (1916, p. 8) designated Carcelia aurifrons Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 
as the type species of Senometopia. The universally accepted concept of Senometopia 
is based on this type species designation. Carcelia aurifrons is currently treated as a 
junior subjective synonym of Tachina excisa Fallén, 1820; the accepted valid name of 
this taxon is Senometopia excisa. 

7. Evenhuis & Thompson (1990, p. 238) discovered the overlooked type species 
designation for Sturmia by Desmarest in d’Orbigny (1848). They suggested that 
‘Application to I.C.Z.N. for suppression of Desmarest’s designation may be neces- 
sary to maintain stability of taxonomy and usage’ (p. 238). More recently, O’Hara 
et al. (2009, p. 118) and Evenhuis et al. (2010, p. 154) called attention to Desmarest’s 
designation and noted that an application to the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature was in preparation to suppress any type designations for 
Sturmia prior to the one by Robineau-Desvoidy (1863, p. 888). This present 
application is the one alluded to by O’Hara et al. (2009) and Evenhuis et al. (2010). 

8. Evenhuis & Thompson (1990, p. 237) discovered an overlooked type species 
designation for Senometopia of Sturmia atropivora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 by 
Desmarest in d’Orbigny (1848) and suggested that the designation be suppressed in 
favor of Carcelia aurifrons Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830. An earlier type species 
designation for Senometopia than the one by Desmarest has since been discovered 
(Evenhuis 2010): that of Stephens in Richardson (1838, p. 478) who similarly 
designated Sturmia atropivora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830. 

9. Nomenclatural instability would result from the adoption of Sturmia atropivora 
as the type species of Sturmia and Senometopia, as designated by Desmarest in 
d’Orbigny (1848) and Stephens in Richardson (1838), respectively. Sturmia 
atropivora is currently treated as a valid species of Drino Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863 
(e.g. Herting & Dely-Draskovits, 1993; O’Hara et al., 2009). Acceptance of S. 
atropivora as the type species of Sturmia and Senometopia would result in the names 
Sturmia, Senometopia and Drino becoming subjective synonyms, with Sturmia having 
priority over the other two. The genus currently known as Drino would take the name 
Sturmia (with Drino in subjective synonymy). The genus currently known as Sturmia 
would take the name Oodigaster Macquart, 1854 (the next available genus-group 
name for an included species; the type species of Oodigaster was recently fixed as 
Tachina bella Meigen, 1824 by O’Hara et al. (2009) under Article 70.3.2 of the Code). 
The genus currently known as Senometopia would take the name Stenometopia 
Agassiz, 1846 (an unjustified emendation of Senometopia and the next available 
genus-group name). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 63 


10. Regional catalogues of Diptera record Drino (ExORISTINAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 
1963, ERYCIINI Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 [relative precedence of family-group names 
protected by Article 35.5 of the Code]; including subgenera Zygobothria Mik, 1891 
and Palexorista Townsend, 1921, both commonly treated as separate genera prior to 
the 1990s) as a cosmopolitan genus with about 125 species; Sturmia (EXORISTINAE, 
GONIINI Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830; prior to the 1990s commonly classified in the 
STURMIINI Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863) is recorded as a widely distributed genus in 
the Old World with 11 species; and Senometopia (EXORISTINAE, ERYCIINI; prior to the 
1990s commonly placed as a subgenus of Carcelia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830) is also 
recorded as a widely distributed genus in the Old World with about 60 species (e.g. 
Crosskey, 1977, 1980; Cantrell & Crosskey, 1989; Herting & Dely-Draskovits, 1993; 
O’Hara & Wood, 2004; O’Hara et al., 2009; [Guimaraes (1971) recorded Sturmia 
from the Neotropical Region in error]). Switching the name of the genus Drino to 
Sturmia would cause substantial confusion in the tachinid literature. Furthermore, 
the concept of the former sTURMIINI would be changed. The name sTURMIINI is 
currently regarded as a subjective synonym of GoNIINI, but acceptance of Desmarest’s 
type species designation for Sturmia would place it in subjective synonymy with 
ERYCIINI (the latter name having priority; Sabrosky, 1999, pp. 130, 293). 

11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all type species fixations for the nominal 
genus Sturmia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 before that of Sturmia vanessae 
Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 by Robineau-Desvoidy (1863); 

(2) to use its plenary power to set aside all type species fixations for the nominal 
genus Senometopia Macquart, 1834 before that of Carcelia aurifrons 
Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 by Townsend (1916); 

(3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) Sturmia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (gender: feminine), type species 

Sturmia vanessae Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, as ruled in (1) above; 
(b) Senometopia Macquart, 1834 (gender: feminine), type species Carcelia 
aurifrons Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, as ruled in (2) above; 
(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) vanessae Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, as published in the binomen Sturmia 
vanessae (specific name of the type species of Sturmia Robineau-Desvoidy, 
1830); 

(b) aurifrons Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, as published in the binomen Carcelia 
aurifrons (specific name of the type species of Senometopia Macquart, 
1834). 


References 


Agassiz, L. 1846. Nomenclatoris zoologici index universalis, continens nomina systematica 
classium, ordinum, familiarum et generum animalium omnium, tam viventium quam 
fossilium, secundum ordinem alphabeticum unicum disposita, adjectis homonymiis 
plantarum, nec non variis adnotationibus et emendationibus. [= Fasc. XII]. viii, 393 pp. Jent 
& Gassman, Soloduri [= Solothurn, Switzerland]. 

Cantrell, B.K. & Crosskey, R.W. 1989. Family Tachinidae. Pp. 733-784. In Evenhuis, N.L. 
(Ed.), Catalog of the Diptera of the Australasian and Oceanian Regions. Bishop Museum 
Special Publication 86. 1155 pp. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu & E.J. Brill, Leiden. 


64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


Crosskey, R.W. 1977. Family Tachinidae. Pp. 586-697. In Delfinado, M.D. & Hardy, D.E. 
(Eds.), A Catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental Region. Volume III. Suborder Cyclor- 
rphapha (excluding Division Aschiza). 854 pp. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. 

Crosskey, R.W. 1980. Family Tachinidae. Pp. 822-882. In Crosskey, R.W. (Ed.), Catalogue of 
the Diptera of the Afrotropical Region. 1437 pp. British Museum (Natural History), 
London. 

Evenhuis, N.L. 2010. Type designations of Diptera (Insecta) in the Encyclopaedia Metro- 
politana. Zootaxa, 2653: 37-50. 

Evenhuis, N.L., O’Hara, J.E., Pape, T. & Pont, A.C. 2010. Nomenclatural studies toward a 
world list of Diptera genus-group names. Part I: André-Jean-Baptiste Robineau- 
Desvoidy. Zootaxa, 2373: 1-265. 

Evenhuis, N.L. & Thompson, F.C. 1990. Type designations of genus-group names of Diptera 
given in d’Orbigny’s Dictionnaire Universel d'Histoire Naturelle. Bishop Museum 
Occasional Papers, 30: 226-258. 

Guimaraes, J.H. 1971. Family Tachinidae (Larvaevoridae). A catalogue of the Diptera of the 
Americas south of the United States, 104: 1-333. 

Herting, B. & Dely-Draskovits, A. 1993. Family Tachinidae. Pp. 118-458 in Soés, A. & Papp, 
L. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera. Volume 13. Anthomyiidae — Tachinidae. 624 
pp. Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest. 

Macquart, J. 1834. Insectes diptéres du nord de la France. Tome V. Athéricéres: créophiles, 
oestrides, myopaires, conopsaires, scénopiniens, céphalopsides. 232 pp., 6 pls. L. Danel, Lille. 

Macquart, J. 1854. Nouvelles observations sur les diptéres d’Europe de la tribu des tachinaires. 
(Suite.) Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (3)2: 373-446, pls. 13-15. 

Mik, J. 1891. Dipterologische Miscellen. XIX. Wiener Entomologische Zeitung, 10: 189-194. 

O’Hara, J.E., Shima, H. & Zhang, C.-t. 2009. Annotated catalogue of the Tachinidae (Insecta: 
Diptera) of China. Zootaxa, 2190: 1-236. 

O’Hara, J.E. & Wood, D.M. 2004. Catalogue of the Tachinidae (Diptera) of America north of 
Mexico. Memoirs on Entomology, International, 18: iv, 410 pp. 

Orbigny, C.V.D. d’. (Ed.). 1848. [Livraison 134], pp. 65-128. Dictionnaire universel @histoire 
naturelle résumant et complétant.... Tome douziéme. 816 pp. C. Renard, Paris. 

Richardson, C. 1838. [Lexicon] in Smedley, E., Rose, H[ugh].J. & Rose, H[enry].J., (Eds.), 
Encyclopaedia metropolitana; or, universal dictionary of knowledge, on an original plan: 
comprising the twofold advantage of a philosophical and an alphabetical arrangement, with 
appropriate engravings. Volume XXIV. [Miscellaneous & lexicographical, Vol. 11]. 864 pp. 
B. Fellowes, F. & J. Rivington, Duncan & Malcolm, Suttaby & Co., E. Hodgson, 
J. Dowding, G. Lawford, J.M. Richardson, J. Bohn, T. Allman, J. Bain, S. Hodgson, F.C. 
Westley, L.A. Lewis, T. Hodges, H. Washbourne, London; J.H. Parker, T. Laycock, 
Oxford; J. & J.J. Deighton, Cambridge. 

Robineau-Desvoidy, J.B. 1830. Essai sur les myodaires. Mémoires présentés par divers savants 
a l’Académie Royale des Sciences de l'Institut de France. Sciences Mathématiques et 
Physiques, (2)2: 1-813. 

Robineau-Desvoidy, J.B. 1863. Histoire naturelle des diptéres des environs de Paris. Tome 
premier. xvi, 1143 pp. V. Masson et fils, Paris, F. Wagner, Leipzig, and Williams & 
Norgate, London. 

Sabrosky, C.W. 1999. Family-group names in Diptera. An annotated catalog. Myia, 10: 1-360. 

Townsend, C.H.T. 1916. Designations of muscoid genotypes, with new genera and species. 
Insecutor Inscitiae Menstruus, 4: 4-12. 

Townsend, C.H.T. 1921. Some new muscoid genera ancient and recent. Insecutor Inscitiae 
Menstruus, 9: 132-134. 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 270. 
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 


should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 65 


Case 3542 


Trachelus Jurine, 1807 (Hymenoptera, CEPHIDAE): proposed precedence 
over Astatus Panzer, [1801] 


Stephan M. Blank and Andreas Taeger 


Senckenberg Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, Eberswalder Str. 90, 
15374 Mtincheberg, Germany (e-mail: Stephan.Blank@senckenberg.de; 
Andreas. Taeger@senckenberg.de) 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to 
conserve the widely used genus name TJrachelus Jurine, 1807 in its accustomed usage. 
The name Trachelus is threatened by its senior synonym Astatus Panzer, [1801]. Strict 
application of the Principle of Priority would also involve the recombination with a 
new genus name for the ‘black grain stem sawfly’, Trachelus tabidus (Fabricius, 1775), 
which is a pest of cereals in the southern West Palaearctic and in North America. It 
is proposed that Trachelus should be given precedence over Astatus whenever the two 
are considered to be synonyms. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; CEPHIDAE; Astatus; Trachelus; 
sawfly; West Palaearctic; Nearctic. 


1. Panzer ({1801a], Heft 83, p. 12) proposed the generic name Astatus, type species 
by monotypy Sirex troglodyta Fabricius, 1787 (pp. 258-259). We follow Sherborn 
(1923, p. 567) in dating Hefte 80-83 of Panzer, including the original description of 
Astatus, to the year 1801. Evenhuis (1997, p. 600) gave the possible period of 
publication as after June 1800 and before 17 June 1801. Rohwer (19lla, p. 74) 
designated Sirex troglodyta Fabricius, 1787 as the type species of Astatus, providing 
proper reference to Panzer’s ([1801a]) description but erroneously quoting Jurine as 
the author of Astatus. The citation of the wrong author was corrected by Rohwer 
(1911b, p. 218). Rohwer’s (1911a) subsequent designation of a type species is not 
valid, because Panzer ({1801a]) in Heft 83 (p. 12) included A. troglodyta as the only 
Astatus species, which is therefore type species by monotypy (Taeger & Blank, 2006, 
p. 327). Additional species were later associated with Astatus by Panzer ({1801b]) in 
Heft 85 published on 26 December 1801 (Evenhuis, 1997, p. 600). 

2. Latreille (1797, pp. 114-115) proposed the generic name Astatus for a wasp with 
no species originally included. In the preface of his book, Latreille (1797, p. xiii) 
corrected the spelling of Astatus Latreille, 1797 to Astata, which represents the 
correction of an incorrect original spelling under the provisions of Article 32.5.1.1 
and thus a justified emendation under the provisions of Article 33.2.2 of the Code. 
Latreille (1803, pp. 336-337) included as the first species Tiphia abdominalis Panzer, 
[1798] (Heft 53, p. 5), which became type species by subsequent designation (Opinion 
139, p. 42, 20 December 1942). The name Astata is currently applied to a genus of 
SPHECIDAE (Pulawski, 2010). Several authors, for example Abe & Smith (1991), 
erroneously claimed Astatus Panzer, [1801] (CEPHIDAE) to be a junior homonym of 


66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


Astatus Latreille, 1797 (SPHECIDAE). Konow (1908) stated that such a homonymy does 
not exist due to the emendation included in Latreille’s (1797, p. xiii) preface. The 
incorrect original spelling Astatus Latreille, 1797 accordingly has no influence on the 
present case. 

3. [Jurine] in Panzer (1801c, p. 163) proposed the generic name Astatus and 
included ‘Sirex pygmaeus. Banchus spinipes Panzer (Banchus viridator Fabric. 
inedit.)’. Astatus [Jurine], 1801 is unavailable, because it was included in the work 
commonly known as the ‘Erlangen List’, which has been suppressed under the 
plenary power for the purpose of nomenclature (Opinion 135, 13 June 1939; 
Direction 4, 12 June 1954). 

4. Jurine (1807, pp. 70-72, plate 2, fig. 9) replaced the generic name Astatus [Jurine] 
in Panzer, 1801 by Trachelus. Of the six species included originally in Trachelus, 
Rohwer (1911la, p. 91) designated Sirex tabidus Fabricius, 1775 (p. 326) as the type 
species of Trachelus. It is evident from Jurine’s (1807, p. 72) list of species that the 
genus was intended to include species associated with Astatus by Panzer ([1801a], 
[1801b]) and some of the species associated with Astatus by Klug (1803, pp. 47-56): 
‘Troglodita. Fabr. Cephus’, a misspelling of the species-group name troglodyta, 
originally described as Sirex troglodyta Fabricius, 1787 (pp. 258-259), currently 
treated as a valid species of the genus Jrachelus Jurine, 1807; “Compressus.* Fabr. 
Cephus’, originally described as Sirex compressus Fabricius, 1793 (p. 131), currently 
treated as a valid species of the genus Janus Stephens, 1829; ‘Pygmaeus. Fabr. 
Cephus’, a misspelling of the species-group name pygmeus, originally described as 
Sirex pygmeus Linnaeus, 1767 (pp. 929-930), currently treated as a valid species of 
the genus Cephus Latreille, 1803; ‘Tabidus. Fabr. Cephus’, originally described as 
Sirex tabidus Fabricius, 1775 (p. 326), currently treated as a valid species of the genus 
Trachelus Jurine, 1807; ‘Satyrus. Panzer. Astatus’, originally described as Astatus 
satyrus Panzer, [1801b] (p. 12), currently treated as a valid species of the genus 
Hartigia Schiodte, 1839; ‘Haemorroidalis. Gravé’, originally described as Tenthredo 
haemorrhoidalis Fabricius, 1781 (p. 417), currently treated as a valid species of the 
genus Hartigia Schiodte, 1839. 

5. Billberg (1820, p. 98) described Cepha, type species by monotypy Sirex tabidus 
Fabricius, 1775 (p. 326). Owing to its similarity to the well-known genus-group name 
Cephus Latreille, 1803, Morice & Durrant (1915, p. 384) proposed the replacement 
name Trachelastatus. Cepha Billberg, 1820 and Trachelastatus Morice & Durrant, 
1915 are junior objective synonyms of Trachelus Jurine, 1807 by virtue of having the 
same type species. 

6. Erroneously supposing Astatus to have been described twice, by Latreille 
(1797) and Panzer ([1801]), Schulz (1906, p. 211) proposed the replacement name 
Eumetabolus for Astatus Panzer, [1801]. 

7. Benson (1935) subdivided the group within CEPHIDAE, which today is represented 
by the same genus Trachelus, into Ateuchopus Konow, 1896, Microcephus Benson, 
1935, Neateuchopus Benson, 1935 and Trachelus Jurine, 1807, and listed ‘Astatus 
Jurine auct., 1801, nec Latreille, 1796’ as a synonym of Trachelus. In a subsequent 
work, Benson (1946) followed a wider concept of Trachelus, in which he grouped 
‘together into one genus [i.e. into Trachelus] the species previously included in 
Trachelus and Eumetabolus, largely on the similarity in the form of their female saw- 
sheaths and their male sternites’ (p. 104). He listed as junior synonyms Ateuchopus, 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 67 


Microcephus, Neateuchopus, and in addition Eumetabolus Schulz, 1906 and Trache- 
lastatus Morice & Durrant, 1915. The name Astatus Panzer, [1801] was not 
considered by Benson (1946), but its synonymy with Trachelus has been implied by 
the synonymy of its replacement name Eumetabolus. Subsequent works have usually 
followed Benson’s (1946) concept. Trachelus now comprises eight species native to 
the Palaearctic (Blank et al., 2009, Taeger et al., 2010). None of these works has 
discussed the priority of Astatus Panzer, [1801] over Trachelus Jurine, 1807 until 
Taeger & Blank (2006, p. 327) and Taeger et al. (2010, p. 53). Although without 
comment, Dusmet (1949) used the name Astatus in combination with ‘niger Harr.’, 
which possibly corresponds with Trachelus troglodyta following Konow’s misinter- 
pretation of this name. Also without providing an explanation, Weiffenbach (1982) 
treated as valid genus names both Astatus for A. flavicornis (Lucas, 1849) (Lucas 
[1848]-1849, pp. 342-345, pl. 19) and Trachelus for T. tabidus and T. ‘troglodytes’, a 
misspelling of troglodyta. 

8. Trachelus tabidus (Fabricius, 1775), known as the ‘black grain stem sawfly’, is 
native to the southern part of the West Palaearctic region and it was inadvertently 
introduced into the Nearctic. Larvae of Trachelus, particularly of T. tabidus, and of 
Cephus pygmeus (Linnaeus, 1767) are common pests of cultivated grain crops such as 
durum and bread wheat, barley, and oats. They feed internally in the stalks causing 
reduced grain weight and losses at harvest due to stalk break. About 85 years ago 
[. tabidus and C. pygmeus achieved pest status in the United States (Gahan, 1920; 
Houser, 1935; Udine, 1941; Wallace & McNeal, 1966). In the West Palaearctic, 
Trachelus species have been the subject of various pest management publications (e.g. 
Gol’berg, 1986; Banita et al., 1992; Miller et al., 1993). Between 1917 and 2004 at least 
25 works were published in applied entomology including information on T. tabidus 
and related species of Trachelus. Among 203 works published in various fields of 
entomology between 1900 and 2010, which refer to tabidus, 192 treated this species in 
Trachelus and seven in the subgenus Trachelus. Taxonomic catalogues and major 
identification works published during the past 60 years have consistently used the 
name Trachelus as valid but not Astatus (e.g. Benson, 1951, 1968; Middlekauff, 1969; 
Verzhutskii, 1973; Smith, 1979; Muche, 1981; Abe & Smith, 1991: Goulet, 1992; 
Zhelochovtsev & Zinovjev, 1993; Stange, 1997; Taeger et al., 2010). Only the 
outdated North American Catalog of Ross (1951) still treated tabidus under Cephus 
(Trachelus). A list of 255 works published after 1946, which demonstrates the widely 
accustomed use of Trachelus for the genus and T. tabidus for the pest organism, 
has been forwarded to the Commission Secretariat. A Google search for the 
string ‘Trachelus tabidus’ provided a total of 1,600 hits of various origins, while 
‘Astatus tabidus’ was found only 70 times, mostly referring to digitalised historical 
publications. 

9. Strict application of the Principle of Priority would result in considerable 
nomenclatural confusion, because a pest organism, Trachelus tabidus, would receive 
a new generic name. Since the senior synonym Astatus Panzer, [1801] has been used 
several times after 1899 as a valid genus-group name until Benson’s (1946) revision 
and rarely also later, the priority of the junior synonym Trachelus Jurine, 1807 cannot 
be reversed in accordance with the provisions of Article 23.9.1.1 of the Code. We 
propose that, to ensure nomenclatural stability, the Commission rule to give priority 
to Trachelus Jurine, 1807 over Astatus Panzer, [1801] in its accustomed usage 


68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


whenever the two generic names are considered to be synonyms. The case has to be 
referred to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of Article 23.9.3 of the 
Code. 

10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 

asked: 

(1) to use its plenary power to give the generic name Trachelus Jurine, 1807 
precedence over the name Astatus Panzer, [1801], whenever the two are 
considered to be synonyms; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) Trachelus Jurine, 1807 (genus: masculine), type species by subsequent 

designation by Rohwer (191la) Sirex tabidus Fabricius, 1775, with the 
endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name Astatus 
Panzer, [1801], whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; 

(b) Astatus Panzer, [1801] (genus: masculine), type species by monotypy Sirex 
troglodyta Fabricius, 1787, with the endorsement that it is not to be given 
priority over the name Trachelus Jurine, 1807, whenever the two are 
considered to be synonyms; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) tabidus Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Sirex tabidus (specific 

name of the type species of Trachelus Jurine, 1807); 

(b) troglodyta Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Sirex troglodyta 

(specific name of the type species of Astatus Panzer, [1801]). 


Acknowledgements 


We are grateful to A.D. Liston (Miincheberg), A. Shinohara (Tokyo), W.J. Pulawski 
(San Francisco, CA), D.R. Smith (Washington, DC), M. Wei (Changsha) for 
critically reading earlier versions of the manuscript and supporting this application. 


References 


Abe, M. & Smith, D.R. 1991. The genus-group names of Symphyta (Hymenoptera) and their 
type species. Esakia, 31: 1-115. 

Banita, E., Popov, C., Luca, E., Cojocaru, D., Paunescu, G. & Vilau, F. 1992. Elemente de 
combatere integrata a viespilor griului (Cephus pygmaeus Latr. si Trachelus tabidus L.). 
Probleme de Protectia Plantelor, 20(3-4): 169-185. 

Benson, R.B. 1935. On the genera of Cephidae, and the erection of a new family Syntexidae 
(Hymenoptera, Symphyta). Annals and Magazine of Natural History, including Zoology, 
Botany, and Geology, 10th series, 16: 535-553. 

Benson, R.B. 1946. Classification of the Cephidae (Hymenoptera Symphyta). Transactions of 
the Royal Entomological Society of London, 96(6): 89-108. 

Benson, R.B. 1951. Hymenoptera, Symphyta. Handbooks for the Identification of British 
Insects, 6(2a): 1-49. 

Benson, R.B. 1968. Hymenoptera from Turkey, Symphyta. Bulletin of the British Museum 
(Natural History), Entomology series, 22(4): 111-207. 

Blank, S.M., Taeger, A., Liston, A.D., Smith, D.R., Rasnitsyn, A.P., Shinohara, A., Heidemaa, 
M. & Viitasaari, M. 2009. Studies toward a World Catalog of Symphyta (Hymenoptera). 
Zootaxa, 2254: 1-96. 

Billberg, G.J. 1820. Enumeratio Insectorum in Museo Gust. Joh. Billberg. 138 pp. Gadelianis, 
Stockholm. 

Dusmet, J.M. 1949. Revision de los Tenthredinidos de Espafia. Publicaciones de la Real 
Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales (Centenario), 1(10): 441-484. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 69 


Evenhuis, N.L. 1997. Litteratura taxonomica dipterorum (1758-1930). Volumes 1-2: vii, 871 
pp. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden. 

Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae sistens Insectorum classes, ordines, genera, species, 
adjectis synonymis, locis, descriptionibus, observationibus. [30], 832 pp. Korte, Flensburgi 
& Lipsiae. 

Fabricius, J.C. 1781. Species Insectorum exhibentes eorum differentias specificas, synonyma 
auctorum, loca natalia, metamorphosin adiectis observationibus, descriptionibus, vol. 1. viii, 
552 pp. C.E. Bohnii, Hamburgi & Kilonii. 

Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa Insectorum, sistens corum species nuper detectas : adjectis 
characteribus genericis, differentiis specificis, emendationibus, observationibus, vol. 1. xx, 
348 pp. Christ. Gottl. Proft., Hafnie. 

Fabricius, J.C. 1793. Entomologia Systematica, vol. 2. Pp. 478-487. Hafniae. 

Gahan, A.B. 1920. Black grain-stem sawfly of Europe in the United States. United States 
Deptartment of Agriculture, Bulletin, 834: 1-18. 

Gol’berg, A.M. 1986. Biology of the stem sawflies Trachelus tabidus and Cephus pygmaeus in 
the Negev of southern Israel. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 40(2): 117-121. 

Goulet, H. 1992. The genera and subgenera of the sawflies of Canada and Alaska: Hymen- 
optera: Symphyta. Jn The insects and arachnids of Canada (Part 20). Agriculture Canada 
Publication, 1876: 1-235. 

Houser, J.S. 1935. The black grain-stem sawfly, Trachelus tabidus (Fab.), in Ohio. Journal of 
Economic Entomology, 28: 457-458. 

Jurine, L. 1807. Nouvelle méthode de classer les Hyménopteéres et les Diptéres, vol. 4(I1). 319 pp., 
7 pls., Genéve & Paris. 

Klug, F. 1803. Monographia Siricum Germaniae atque generum illis adnumeratorum. xii + 64, [7] 
pp. F. Schtppel, Berolini. 

Konow, F.W. 1908. Litteratur. (Hym.). Zetschrif fiir systematische Hymenopterologie und 
Dipterologie, 8(1): 47-48. 

Latreille, P.A. 1797. Précis des caractéres génériques des Insectes, disposés dans un ordre naturel 
par le Citoyen Latreille. An V. xiv, 201, [7] pp. Prévot, Paris & F. Bordeaux, Brive. 
Latreille, P.A. 1803. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des Crustacés et des Insectes, 

vol. 3[1802—1803](1-12). 467 pp. Dufart, Paris. 

Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, part 2. Pp. 533-1327. Salvii, Holmiae. 

Lucas, P.H. [1848]-1849. Exploration scientifique de Il’ Algérie pendant les Années 1840, 1841, 
1842, publiée par Ordre du Gouvernement et avec le Concours d’une Commission 
Académique. Sciences physiques. Zoologie. III. Histoire naturelle des Animaux articulés. 
Troisiéme partie. Insectes, vol. 3. Pp. 3, 3-527. Imprimerie Nationale, Paris. 

Middlekauff, W.W. 1969. The Cephid stem borers of California (Hymenoptera: Cephidae). 
Bulletin of the California Insect Survey, 11: 1-18. 

Miller, R.H., El Masri, S. & Al Jundi, K. 1993. Plant density and wheat stem sawfly 
(Hymenoptera: Cephidae) resistance in Syrian wheats. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 
83: 95-102. 

Morice, F.D. & Durrant, J.H. 1915. The authorship and first publication of the Jurinean genera 
of Hymenoptera: Being a reprint of a long-lost work by Panzer, with a translation into 
English, an introduction, and bibliographical and critical notes. Transactions of the 
Entomological Society of London, {1914](3-4): 339-436. 

Muche, W.H. 1981. Die Cephidae der Erde (Hym., Cephidae). Deutsche Entomologische 
Zeitschrift, Neue Folge, 28(4—5): 239-295. 

Panzer, G.W.F. [1798]. Faunae Insectorum Germanicae initia oder Deutschlands Insecten. 
Vol. 5[1798](53): 24 pp., 24 pls. Felssecker, Niirnberg. 

Panzer, G.W.F. [180la]. Faunae Insectorum Germanicae initia oder Deutschlands Insecten. 
Vol. 7[1799-1801](83). 24 pp., 24 pls. Felssecker, Niirnberg. 

Panzer, G.W.F. [1801b]. Faunae Insectorum Germanicae initia oder Deutschlands Insecten. 
Vol. 8[1801—1804](85). 24 pp., 24 pls. Felssecker, Niirnberg. 

Panzer, G.W.F. 1801c. Nachricht von einem neuen entomolischen Werke, des Hrn. Prof. 
Jurine in Geneve. Intelligenzblatt der Litteratur-Zeitung, 1: 160-165 [reprinted by Morice 
& Durrant, 1915, pp. 357-365]. 


70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


Pulawski, W.J. 2010. Astata. 38 pp. In Pulawski, W.J., Catalog of Sphecidae sensu lato (= 
Apoidea excluding Apidae). http://research.calacademy.org/files/Departments/ent/ 
sphecidae/Genera_and_species_pdf/Astata.pdf, accessed on 18.10.2010. 

Rohwer, S.A. 191 1a. Technical papers on miscellaneous forest insects. II. The genotypes of the 
sawflies and woodwasps, or the superfamily Tenthredinoidea. United States Department 
of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology, Technical series, 20: 69-109. 

Rohwer, S.A. 1911b. Additions and corrections to ‘The genotypes of the sawflies and 
woodwasps, or the superfamily Tenthredinoidea’ (Hymen.). Entomological News 
and Proceedings of the Entomological Section of the Academy of Natural Sciences of 
Philadelphia, 22: 218-219. 

Ross, H.H. 1951. Suborder Symphyta (= Chalastogastra) [except the Siricoidea, the Pamphilii- 
dae, and the genus Periclista]. Pp. 4-89 in Muesebeck, C.F.W., Krombein, K.V. & 
Townes, H.K. (Eds.), Hymenoptera of America North of Mexico. Synoptic Catalog, vol. 2. 
1420 pp. United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Monograph, Washington 
DC. 

Schulz, W.A. 1906. Strandgut. Spolia Hymenopterologica, [1906]: 76-269. 

Sherborn, C.D. 1923. On the dates of G. W. F. Panzer’s ‘Fauna Insect. German.’, 1792-1844. 
Annals and Magazine of Natural History, including Zoology, Botany, and Geology, 
9th series, 11(64): 566-567. 

Smith, D.R. 1979. Suborder Symphyta. Pp. 3-137 in Krombein, K.V., Hurd, P.D., Jr., Smith, 
D.R. & Burks, B.D. (Eds.), Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico. Volume 
1, Symphyta and Apocrita (Parasitica). xvi, 1198 pp. Smithsonian Institution Press, 
Washington DC. 

Stange, L.A. 1997. The stem sawflies of Florida (Hymenoptera: Cephidae). Entomology 
Circular, 382: 1+. 

Taeger, A. & Blank, S.M. 2006. Bibliographic notes. Pp. 319-330 in Blank, S.M., Schmidt, S. 
& Taeger, A. (Eds.), Recent Sawfly Research: Synthesis and Prospects. Goecke & Evers, 
Keltern. 

Taeger, A., Blank, S.M. & Liston, A.D. 2010. World catalog of Symphyta (Hymenoptera). 
Zootaxa, 2580: 1-1064. 

Udine, E.J. 1941. The black grain stem sawfly and the European wheat stem sawfly in the 
United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Circular, 607: 1-9. 

Verzhutskii, B.N. 1973. Opredelitel’ lichinok rogokhvostov i pilil’shchikov Sibirii i Dal’nego 
Vostoka. 140 pp. Nauka, Moskva. 

Wallace, L.E. & McNeal, F.H. 1966. Stem sawflies of economic importance in grain crops in 
the United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin, 1350: 1-50. 

Weiffenbach, H. 1982. Uber die von W. Schacht, Miinchen, in den Jahren 1975-1980 in 
Stidspanien gesammelten Blattwespen (Hymenoptera, Tenthredinoidea). Nachrichtenblatt 
der Bayerischen Entomologen, 31(6): 107-112. 

Zhelochovtsev, A.N. & Zinovjev, A.G. 1993. Hymenoptera Part VI Symphyta. Jn Medvedev, 
G.S. (Ed.), Keys to the Insects of the European Part of the USSR, vol. 3(6). 387 pp. 
Amerind Publ. Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 270 
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 


should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 wi 


Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Callidea lateralis 
Guérin-Meéneville, 1838 (currently Lamprocornis lateralis; Insecta, Heteroptera) 
(Case 3523; see BZN 67: 213-217, 314) 


Petr Kment 


Department of Entomology, National Museum, Kunratice 1, CZ-148 00 Praha, 
Czech Republic (e-mail: sigara@post.cz) 


Petr Banar 


Department of Entomology, Moravian Museum, Hviezdoslavova 29a, CZ-627 00 
Brno — Slatina, Czech Republic (e-mail: petrbanar@seznam.cz) 


We studied carefully the detailed argumentation of Tsai & Rédei (2010; Zootaxa, 
2572: 25-47) concerning Lamprocoris obtusus (Westwood, 1837), a senior objective 
synonym of Lamprocoris lateralis (Guérin-Méneville, 1838). There is no doubt about 
the following facts emphasised by Rédei & Tsai (BZN 67: 213-217): 

1) The senior name L. obtusus was greatly overlooked by subsequent authors and 
has never been positively treated as different from L. Jateralis; 

ii) There is extensive and substantial literature on this biological species under the 
junior name L. Jateralis; ; 

iii) This species is of economic importance, and is rather common in several parts 
of Southeast Asia, so it appears also in the agricultural literature and popular books 
on insects; 

iv) Changing the name of this species simply because of adherence to the Principle 
of Priority is undesirable and would threaten stability of scUTELLERIDAE nomen- 
clature. 

For these reasons, we strongly support the solution suggested by Rédei & Tsai 
(BZN 67: 213), i.e. to use the Commission’s plenary power to suppress the specific 
name Callidea obtusa Westwood, 1837 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority 
but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy, as is summarised in paragraph 9 of 
Case 3523. 


Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of Allosaurus Marsh, 1877 
(Dinosauria, Theropoda) by designation of a neotype for its type species Allosaurus 
fragilis Marsh, 1877 

(Case 3506; see BZN 67: 53-56; 178, 255-256, 332) 


V. Demirjian 
lI Canyon Terrace, Newport Coast, CA 92657 U.S.A. 
(e-mail: vahedemirjian@cox.net) 


The taxonomy of the species referred to Allosaurus has been a contentious issue, as 
summarised by Paul (1988, 2010) and Chure (2000). Bakker (2000) and Paul (2010) 
claimed that Allosaurus fragilis (based on USNM 4734) is distinct from other 
specimens (DINO 2560, AMNH 666, etc.) by the proportions of its skull. However, 
Chure (2000) demonstrated that the supposed shortness of the skull of USNM 4734 
was based on an erroneous reconstruction of the skull by Gilmore (1920). 


72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


Additional references 


Bakker, R.T. 2000. Brontosaur killers: Late Jurassic allosaurids as sabre-tooth cat analogues. 
Gaia, 15: 145-158. 
Paul, G. 2010. The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs. 320 pp. Princeton University Press. 


Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 
1812 (currently Geochelone (Aldabrachelys) gigantea; Reptilia, Testudines) 

(Case 3463; see BZN 66: 34-50, 80-87, 169-186, 274-290, 352-357; 67: 71-90, 
170-178, 246-254, 319-331) 


Marinus S. Hoogmoed 


Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi!CZO, Caixa Postal 399, 66017—970 Belém, Parad, 
Brazil (e-mail: hoogmoed_apires@terra.com.br) 


Since Case 3463 was submitted to ICZN comments on the name of the Aldabra 
tortoise have been many and varied. The most recent paper on the issue is by Frazier 
& Matyot (2010), who extensively comment on the identity of the lectotype of 
Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831 (RMNH 3231). As former curator of the herpeto- 
logical collection of the Natural History museum in Leiden, the Netherlands 
(RMNH), I was rather amazed to see this article, knowing that neither one of the 
authors ever has seen the specimen discussed, neither during my tenure in the RMNH 
(1966-2004) nor between 2004 and the publication of their mentioned article. It 
therefore seems necessary to add some more comments to the already (too) extensive 
literature of this case. 


Identification 


Frazier & Matyot (2010) present arguments against the credibility of the data that 
accompany the lectotype of T. dussumieri. They make statements that contradict all 
we know about the specimen and its history, and even reach the conclusion that ‘it 
is possible that the last survivors of an endemic species of tortoise were on Mahé at 
the time of Dussumier’s visits to Seychelles possibly starting as early as 1823, and 
therefore that his specimen that is now in Leiden [RMNH 3231] is not an Aldabra 
tortoise but rather a Seychelles tortoise’ (Frazier & Matyot, 2010, p. 41). Note that 
this conclusion was based on assumptions only and that the authors never studied the 
specimen. Frazier & Matyot (2010) did not use the photographs of the specimen 
(RMNH 3231) available in the literature (Gerlach, 2004a; Bour, 2006; Griinewald, 
2009) to provide evidence for their remarkable statement about the identity of 
RMNH 3231, although they were well aware of the existence of these photos 
(Frazier, 2006b; Frazier & Matyot, 2010). Up until now, RMNH 3231 has been 
studied probably by six professional herpetologists only: Hermann Schlegel, J.E. 
Gray, A.A.W. Hubrecht, Roger Bour, Peter C.H. Pritchard, and myself, and more 
recently by F. Griinewald (2009; BZN 67: 177), a Dutch tortoise hobbyist. Only the 
last four of these persons are alive and have participated in the debate on Case 3463. 
These seven persons independently reached the conclusion that RMNH 3231, based 
on external morphological characters, was an Aldabra tortoise, Dipsochelys dus- 
sumieri. Austin et al. (2003) used mtDNA of old type specimens of non-Madagascan 
Aldabrachelys (including the lectotype of Testudo dussumieri) to determine their 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 73 


identity. A piece of alcohol-preserved tissue from the groin was taken by me from 
RMNH 3231 in 2000 and provided to E.N. Arnold for analysis. This tissue provided 
a 336 base pair (bp) partial sequence (Austin et al., 2003). There was minimal 
variation among the sequences studied, although RMNH 3231 (haplotype B) 
diverged by two nucleotide substitutions (a negligible 0.46% divergence) from the 
most common haplotype A. Austin et al. (2003) concluded “The individuals within 
the studied sample that differ from the common haplotype by 1-4 bp (0.23-0.9% 
divergence), including the type of A. dussumieri, would also be referable to the same 
single species, for even closely related tortoise species that are widely accepted show 
much greater differentiation (see above)’, and ‘On the basis of its uniformity 
compared with other tortoises, the mtDNA of non-Madagascan Aldabrachelys 
studied here suggests that only a single species may be involved’. Thus an indepen- 
dent method reached the same conclusion as the seven persons mentioned before. 
This conclusion of Austin et al. (2003) was wholeheartedly subscribed to by Frazier 
(2006b, 370) in his book review of Gerlach (2004). However, Frazier & Matyot (2010) 
now cite and interpret the Austin et al. (2003) data differently from Frazier (2006b) 
in order to ‘support’ their aberrant opinion on the identity of RMNH 3231 (see 
below). 

The statement by Frazier & Matyot (2010, p. 42) °... considering the very limited 
information that has been published about RMNH 3231, it has simply been assumed 
that the specimen is an Aldabra tortoise ...’ is an assumption on the part of these 
authors that is only based on their prejudiced supposition that RMNH 3231 cannot 
be an Aldabra tortoise. But without studying the specimen themselves they cannot 
provide any hard evidence against the independent identifications of RMNH 3231 
made so far by competent herpetologists. 

It may be noted here that Matyot (BZN 66: 352) was mixing up two specimens 
when he said that the specimen described by Duméril & Bibron (1835) was the same 
one as that given to Leiden. First, the Leiden specimen (RMNH 3231) was already 
in Leiden when Dumeéril & Bibron (1835) published that description (Gray, 1831b). 
Secondly, the fact that the specimen described by Dumeéril & Bibron (1835) is still in 
Paris under number NMNH 1942 (Frazier & Matyot, 2010), invalidates Matyot’s 
(BZN 66: 352) observations on this subject. 


Name and locality 


Hoogmoed et al. (2010) published an account of the type specimens of turtles, 
tortoises and crocodiles in the Leiden Museum. They provided data on the origin and 
the locality of RMNH 3231, which are contested by Frazier & Matyot (2010). 
Gray (183la, p. 3) mentioned Test. Dussumieri, Schegel [sic]. Hoogmoed et al. 
(2010) have pointed out that although Gray (1831 a, b) attributed the name Testudo 
Dussumieri to Schlegel, this was not correct. The specimen was received from Paris 
with that name ‘attached’ to it. This was repeated by Frazier & Matyot (2010), who 
gave an extensive overview of the early history of this name. Gray (1831b) visited 
European museums somewhere before 1831, because the preface to his Synopsis 
Reptilium is dated January 1831. In his preface Gray (1831b) explains the rules under 
which he was allowed to see material: ‘In each of these museums all the specimens 
were intrusted to me, to describe, draw, or examine them, as might best suit my 
purpose, without any restraint, except that, at Leyden, Herr Temminck requested I 


74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


would indicate in what Museum I had seen it, and the name under which it was there 
described, a rule which I hope I have most faithfully kept.’ 

A young specimen of Testudo dussumieri was present in Leiden during Gray’s visit 
there, as we can see from the text on p. 9 (Gray, 1831b), where in the synonymy of 
Testudo indica he gives a short description of Testudo dussumieri: ‘Junior. Testa nigra 
margine laterali angulato, areolis magnis. Test. Dussumieri, Schlegel MSS. (v. Mus. 
Leyd.) — Pet.Gaz. t. 76, f. 4.” and also mentions the distribution (and collectors) of the 
species as ‘Habitat in India Orientali, Gefi. Hardwicke, Insula Mauritiana, Insula 
Aldebra, M. Dussumiere, Galapagos, D. Harlan, Seychelles, (v. v. Hort. Zool., et t. 
Mus. Brit., Col. Chir., Par., et D. Bell.)’. Gray (1831b) made his reference to Schlegel 
[“MSS (v. Mus. Leyde)’] at the request of Temminck (see above). MSS is not further 
explained, but probably stands for manuscript or manuscripts, but we can not be 
certain of that, it may also have meant a name on a label, on a bottle, on a shelf, or 
even an oral communication (most likely by H. Schlegel). The ‘v’ in front of Mus. 
Leyde undoubtedly stands for ‘vide’(= seen [by Gray]). Thus, on one page, we have 
all essential information (apart from the fact that it belonged to the Leiden collection) 
about Testudo dussumieri together: name, collector and locality. However, unfortu- 
nately Gray (1831b) presents his data in such a way that the three can not 
unambiguously be connected, although circumstantial evidence is strong. It seems 
important here to highlight another part of Gray’s (1831b) preface in which he states: 
oH the Royal Museum of Leyden and the Museum of the Senckenbergers 
Society of Francfort having been formed within these few years, the greater part of 
the specimens are quite fresh and in the most perfect condition, and their history is 
generally known and accurately marked upon them.’ From this text it is clear that 
Gray (1831b) had full confidence in the data that accompanied the specimens he saw 
in Leiden. 

Fortunately, concerning Testudo dussumieri there is a solid, printed statement that 
ties specimen, collector and locality together. Hoogmoed et al. (2010) mentioned that 
Temminck & Schlegel (1834) made a clear statement about the provenance of 
RMNH 3231: it was received from the Paris museum under the name Test. 
Dussumieri and was brought from the island of Aldebra by Dussumier. This 
statement in French is cited in full and translated by Bour (2006) and copied again 
by Frazier & Matyot (2010, p. 33). However, after having copied the clear statement, 
which does not leave any room for speculation, Frazier & Matyot (2010) start 
questioning its validity on the basis of confused arguments. Hubrecht (1881) also 
discussed RMNH 3231 and stated that “The locality from whence the specimen was 
brought is sharply fixed. Dussumier himself on his travels in the tropics collected it 
in the island of Aldabra (N.W. of Madagascar) ...’. This citation in Frazier & 
Matyot (2010, p. 36) again is followed by the comment that Hubrecht did not explain 
how he determined the locality of his specimen was ‘sharply fixed’. 

The answer to all queries of Frazier & Matyot (2010) is very simple and 
unambiguous: Temminck & Schlegel (1834) made the published, printed statement 
about name, collector, locality and specimen on the basis of documentation (in 
whichever form) they had received from Paris with the specimen concerned. 
Hubrecht (1881) did the same, basing himself on the register and data on the label 
fixed to the bottle in which RMNH 3231 was (and still is) kept. In the RMNH it 
always has been good practice to trust the data provided with material, until the 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 75 


contrary is proven. In this case there was no reason for any doubt, and Gray (1831b) 
was of the same opinion. Apparently Frazier & Matyot (2010) are unable, or rather 
unwilling, to accept obvious facts and lose themselves in a maze of suppositions and 
speculations about a locality that never has been doubted. 

Frazier & Matyot (2010) cited Austin et al. (2003) to discredit the locality from 
whence RMNH 3231 came. They erroneously attributed all statements about T. 
dussumieri in this paper to Bour, who was one of the three co-authors and should not 
be singled out as being responsible for those data; statements in the paper are the 
shared responsibility of all three co-authors. Frazier & Matyot (2010) did not cite the 
reference correctly. They cite Austin et al. (2003) incompletely, and checking that 
paper carefully gives a completely different picture from the one Frazier & Matyot 
(2010) try to give. Frazier & Matyot (2010, p. 40) suggest that Austin et al. (2003) 
doubted the type locality of 7. dussumieri, because in Table 2 the type locality is 
indicated with a question-mark. However, in Table 1 and on p. 1419 Austin et al. 
(2003) list the locality correctly as resp. “Insula Aldebra’ and ‘Aldabra’. The question- 
mark in Table 2 under locality for T. dussumieri probably was a mistaken repeat of 
the one on the line above concerning 7. daudini. This most likely was due to 
carelessness in reading the proofs of this article which has several typos that could 
and should easily have been avoided, e.g. in Table 1 RMNH 3231 is referred to as 
RMNH 32311, in Figure 2 RMNH 3231 is listed as NMNH 3231, the legend of Table 
2 refers to ““enBank”’ instead of GenBank, etc. Thus, there is no reason to accept 
Frazier & Matyot’s (2010) reasoning about Austin et al. (2003) supposedly doubting 
RMNH 3231’s locality. 

Frazier & Matyot (2010, p. 38) incorrectly conclude that Hoogmoed et al. (2010) 
contradict themselves when talking about the type locality of RMNH 3231. What 
Hoogmoed et al. (2010) in effect were saying, is somewhat different from what Frazier 
& Matyot (2010) suggest. Hoogmoed et al. (2010) stated clearly that the type locality 
of RMNH 3231 is Aldabra and nowhere do they doubt this; they only cite two papers 
that say that even had Dussumier not visited Aldabra he could easily have obtained 
material from there (Bour et al., 2010; Cheke, BZN 67: 79). Hoogmoed et al. (2010) 
do not make any statements about whether Dussumier picked the specimen up himself 
on Aldabra or not, they just show that there is no reason to doubt the locality, because 
that has been associated with RMNH 3231 from the beginning. And stating (Frazier 
& Matyot, 2010) that Hoogmoed et al. (2010) had ‘. . . accepted Matyot’s conclusion 
that Dussumier did not collect on Aldabra’ is stretching the truth a bit too far, to put 
it mildly. The statements by Frazier & Matyot (2010) on p. 40 ‘... but it does not 
remove the uncertainty about the origin of the specimen [RMNH 3231], on p. 41 that 
‘If — as all evidence [which evidence do they mean?] indicates — the place of origin of 
RMNH 3231 is Mahé, or even some other island in the granitic Seychelles, and 
not Aldabra Atoll ...’ and on p. 42 (referring to MNHN 1942 and RMNH 3231) 
‘... when in fact the locality data for both of these specimens are known to be 
uncertain ...’ all can be considered wishful thinking, rather than the result of 
accumulated scientific evidence. As shown here, none of the arguments of Frazier & 
Matyot (2010) that RMNH 3231 is not from Aldabra, hold up against the known 
facts, and the origin of RMNH 3231 undoubtedly remains Aldabra as was accepted 
from the beginning (Gray, 1831b; Temminck & Schlegel, 1834; Hubrecht, 1881; 
Gerlach, 2004; Griinwald, 2009; Hoogmoed (BZN 66: 354); Hoogmoed et al., 2010). 


76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


Labels 

As to the labels and other paper concerning RMNH 3231 there have been some 
unfortunate statements and mistakes in transcribing handwritten texts. Griinewald 
(2009, p. 139, upper figure) showed an old label on the outside of the jar in which 
RMNH 3231 is kept and gave as a legend ‘Het oorspronkelijke label van RMNH 
3231, geschreven door John Edward Gray zelf? [The original label of RMNH 3231, 
written by John Edward Gray himself]. This statement led Frazier & Matyot (2010) 
to several wrong conclusions, even after Griinewald explained to them that his text 
should have included ‘possibly’. There is no reason at all for such a statement, 
because the RMNH never let (foreign) visitors write labels that were attached to 
bottles etc. The collection of the RMNH was established in 1820. About the early 
history of its management we know little and it even is not quite certain when the 
present numbering system for reptiles and amphibians jointly was started, although 
there are some clues to that. During my tenure at RMNH I did some investigation 
into the matter that resulted in a notice I made in the register that was published by 
Bohme & Koch (2010, p. 62) in translation: ‘numbers up to ca. RMNH 3760 are 
classified systematically, higher numbers irregular. Up to that [number] it concerns 
animals received up to ca. 1866. From RMNH 3760 [on] irregular with older 
specimens (1837) and newer (1872, 1877) [intermixed]. I think that from the end of the 
1860’s, beginning 1870’s (RMNH 3881 and further) it seems that specimens were 
classified on receiving date’. Holthuis (1995) mentioned that A.A.W. Hubrecht, who 
became curator of Vertebrates, especially fishes, on June 1, 1875 (and left the RMNH 
in 1882) catalogued the alcohol-collection of fishes and that of reptiles and 
amphibians (3759 lots). It is not clear from where Holthuis (1995) obtained these 
data, but the number of lots agrees with the last catalogue number of the 
systematically arranged reptile and amphibian alcohol material mentioned by me in 
the remark in the RMNH register above. However, the dates of Hubrecht’s stay at 
the RMNH do not seem to agree with the arrangement of material in the register. 
Material received up to 1866 is all arranged systematically, between RMNH 3760 and 
RMNH 3880 there is a mix of older and more recent specimens, and from RMNH 
3881 on material is listed according to arrival date. It therefore seems likely that the 
registering was done by William Marshall, who was assistant for Vertebrates at the 
RMNH between 1868 and 1872, and whose active period at RMNH better coincides 
with the arrangement of material in the register than that of Hubrecht. Another 
possibility of course remains that Hubrecht indeed started the cataloguing (as 
Holthuis, 1995 stated), in about 1875-1877, but that would mean that in the period 
between 1866 and 1877 new material was not inserted in the collection at its proper 
systematic place and this seems unlikely. I therefore assume Marshall was the one 
that started the present day catalogue and numbering system of the collection of 
reptiles and amphibians of the RMNH. Testudo dussumieri is registered in the middle 
of a bunch of other species of Testudo in the first part of the RMNH register, where 
specimens are arranged systematically. This shows the specimen was present by about 
1870 when the numbering system started. The text in the handwritten register is clear 
and unambiguous and reads as follows: “Testudo elephantina juv. Test. indica Ile 
Aldabra (pres de Madagascar)’, and written above ‘(pres de Madagascar)’ is the 
name Dussumier. There are no alterations or deletions in the text, only elephantina 
is underlined, the meaning of which is not clear. This same information can be found 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 77 


written on the old label on the outside of the jar in which RMNH 3231 is kept, in the 
same hand, with the exception of the name of Dussumier. This could mean that the 
label was written at the same time (late 1860’s, early 1870’s) as the register. Apart 
from the original text on the label there is some more information (probably from a 
later date) written on the label in a coarse hand in bold pencil (not in Indian ink as 
supposed by Frazier & Matyot, 2010, p. 38): near the top middle and right hand: 
‘nigrita D & B.’ and in the lower left corner, a bit above the bottom, in about the 
place where RMNH labels generally show the collector, ‘Dussumier’ (Griinewald, 
2009). Thus, there is a good chance that the old label on the bottle of RMNH 3231 
is not the ‘original’ label as stated by Hoogmoed et al. (2010), and that it possibly 
stems from after 1835 as suggested by Frazier & Matyot (2010). Anyway, it is a nearly 
true copy of the data in the first RMNH register and of the data provided by 
Temminck & Schlegel (1834). The only questionable matter that remains is why the 
name Test. dussumieri, mentioned by Temminck & Schlegel (1834) and Gray (1831 b) 
does not appear in the register or on the label. Thus, most likely the old label that is 
nowadays on the outside of the bottle of RMNH 3231 was not seen by Gray, so he 
must have based himself on other information. 


Conclusion 


Based on the arguments presented above I come to the conclusion that none of the 
allegations presented by Frazier & Matyot (2010) about the identity and the validity 
of the locality from which RMNH 3231 came can be substantiated by any hard 
evidence and therefore should be regarded as void. These allegations should not be 
taken into account in the discussion on Case 3463, trying to get accepted the 
unnecessary designation of a neotype for Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812. 


Additional references 


Bohme, W. & Koch, A. 2010. On the type selection and re-typification of two monitor lizard 
taxa (Squamata: Varanidae): Monitor bivittatus celebensis Schlegel, 1844 and Monitor 
kordensis Meyer, 1874; with some comments and corrections on other name-bearing type 
specimens. Zootaxa, 2440: 60-68. 

Frazier J. & Matyot, P. 2010. On the identity of Monsieur Dussumier’s Dutch tortoise and the 
lectotype of Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831. Zootaxa, 2665: 29-50. 

Grinewald, F. 2009. Museumcollecties. RMNH 3231 (Dipsochelys dussumieri) Gray, 1831. 
Trionyx, 7: 136-142. 

Holthuis, L.B. 1995. 1820-1958 Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie. 172 pp. Nationaal 
Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden. 

Hoogmoed, M.S., Gass6 Miracle, M.E. & van den Hoek Ostende L.W. 2010. Type specimens 
of recent and fossil Testudines and Crocodylia in the collections of the Netherlands Centre 
for Biodiversity Naturalis, Leiden, the Netherlands. Zoologische Mededelingen, Leiden, 
84(8): 159-199. 

Temminck, C.J. & Schlegel, H. 1834. Reptilia. In von Siebold, P.F., Fauna Japonica sive 
Descriptio animalium, quae in itinere per Japonianum, jussu et auspiciis superiorum, qui 
summum in India Batava Imperium tenent, suscepto, annis 1823-1830 colleget, notis 
observationibus et adumbrationibus illustratis, vol. M1. xxii, 144 pp., 27 pls. J.G. Lalau, 
Leiden. 


No further comments on Case 3463 will be accepted for publication after 1 May 2011 
unless they contain substantial new evidence that is likely to affect the vote. 


78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of genus Rhynchotherium Falconer, 
1868 (Mammalia; Proboscidea) by designation of Rhynchotherium falconeri Osborn, 
1923 as the type species 

(Case 3515; see BZN 67: 158-162, 256-257) 


Maria Teresa Alberdi 


Departamento de Paleobiologia, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC, José 
Gutiérrez Abascal, 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain (e-mail: malberdi@mncn.csic.es) 


Eduardo Corona-M. 


Centro INAH Morelos, Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Matamoros 
14, Acapatzingo, Cuernavaca, Morelos C.P. 62440, Mexico 
(e-mail: ecoroma09@gmail.com) 


Joaquin Arroyo-Cabrales 


Laboratorio de Arqueozoologia ““M. en C. Ticul Alvarez Solérzano”, Subdireccion 
de Laboratorios y Apoyo Académico, INAH, Moneda # 16, Col. Centro, 06060 
Mexico, D.F., Mexico (e-mail: arromatuS@yahoo.com.mx) 


José Luis Prado 


INCUAPA, Departamento de Arqueologia, Universidad Nacional del Centro, Del 
Valle 5737, B7400J WI Olavarria, Argentina (e-mail: jprado@soc.unicen.edu.ar) 


After a review of the opinion raised by Lucas (BZN 67: 158) and the comments by 
Morgan (BZN 67: 256), we strongly support the proposal for the conservation of the 
name Rhynchotherium, since the morphological characters are distinctive in the New 
World gomphotheres of the Pliocene epoch, e.g. a relatively short mandible, broad 
and with a symphysis obliquely depressed downwards and two lower tusks laterally 
compressed or deeply oval, often bearing external enamel bands. 

The assignation of a holotype was confused from the original designation by 
Falconer (1868), since he used the cast of R. tlascalae for naming a new taxon [Tobien 
(1973, p. 237) indicated that this cast pertained to an individual from the genus 
Gomphotherium, not to Rhynchotherium]. This error was seen by Osborn (1936) and 
he tried to correct it by suggesting R. browni as a neotype (see Osborn, 1936 fig. 452), 
however this proposal was discarded and all the specimens retained in the genus 
Rhynchotherium, since the most important diagnostic characters were those men- 
tioned above for the mandible and the tusks, which enabled a reliable identification 
as it could be seen in recent discoveries of this taxon; e.g. Mexico (Alberdi & Corona, 
2005; Corona & Alberdi, 2006). 

We have authored several taxonomic papers in which we discussed the specific and 
generic statuses within GOMPHOTHERIIDAE and its taxonomy (Alberdi et al., 2002, 
2004, 2007b, 2008, 2009; Corona & Alberdi, 2006; Prado et al., 2002, 2005). We have 
also authored two papers about phylogeny and biogeography of trilophodont 
gomphotheres in which the genus Rhynchotherium is included (Alberdi et al., 2007a; 
Prado & Alberdi, 2008). In those two last papers we rejected the hypothesis that 
Rhynchotherium was a direct ancestor of South American gomphotheres, and 
supported the hypothesis that Sinomastodon is their sister group. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 i 


For the proposal to conserve the genus name and for the taxonomic stability of the 
group, a new type species is warranted, and certainly we do agree that in the first 
instance it could be R. falconeri. However, this would not rule out further studies of 
the group in order to determine a type species that better represents the main features 
of this taxon. 


Additional references 


Alberdi, M.T., Cerdefio, E. & Prado, J.L. 2008. Stegomastodon platensis (Proboscidea, 
Gomphotheriidae) en el Pleistoceno de Santiago del Estero, Argentina. Ameghiniana, 
45(2): 257-271. 

Alberdi, M.T. & Corona, E.M. 2005. Revisidn de los gonfoterios en el Cenozoico tardio de 
México. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Geologicas, 22(2): 246-260. 

Alberdi, M.T., Juarez-Woo, J., Polaco, O.J. & Arroyo-Cabrales, J. 2009. Description of the 
most complete skeleton of Stegomastodon (Mammalia, Gomphotheriidae) recorded for 
the Mexican Late Pleistocene. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Geologie und Paltontologie, Abhand- 
lungen, 251: 239-255. 

Alberdi, M.T., Prado, J.L. & Cartelle, C. 2002. El registro de Stegomastodon (Mammalia, 
Gomphotheriidae) en el Pleistoceno superior de Brasil. Revista Espafiola de Paleontole- 
ogia, 17(2): 217-235. 

Alberdi, M.T., Prado, J.L., Ortiz-Jaureguizar, E., Posadas, P. & Donato, M. 2007a. Historical 
Biogeography of trilophodont gomphotheres (Mammalia, Proboscidea) reconstructed 
applying Dispersion-Vicariance analysis. 4th European Meeting on the Palaeontology and 
Stratigraphy of Latin America. Cuadernos del Museo Geominero IGME, 8: 9-14. 

Alberdi, M.T., Prado, J.L., Perea, D. & Ubilla, M. 2007b. Stegomastodon waringi (Mammalia, 
Proboscidea) from the Late Pleistocene of northeastern Uruguay. Neues Jahrbuch fiir 
Geologie und Paldontologie Abhandlungen, 243(2): 179-189. 

Alberdi, M.T., Prado, J.L. & Salas, R. 2004. The Pleistocene Gomphotheriidae (Proboscidea) 
from Peru. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Geologie und Paltontologie, Abhandlungen, 231(3): 
423-452. 

Prado, J.L. & Alberdi, M.T. 2008. A Cladistic Analysis among Trilophodont Gomphotheres 
(Mammalia, Proboscidea). With Special Attention to the South American Genera. 
Palaeontology, 51(4): 903-915. 

Prado, J.L., Alberdi, M.T., Azanza, B., Sanchez, B. & Frassinetti, D. 2005. The Pleistocene 
Gomphotheriidae (Proboscidea) from South America. Quaternary International, 126-128: 
21-30. 

Prado, J.L., Alberdi, M.T. & Gémez, G.N. 2002. Late Pleistocene gomphotheres (Proboscidea) 
from the Arroyo Tapalqué locality (Buenos Aires, Argentina) and their taxonomic and 
biogeographic implication. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Geologie und Paldontologie, Abhandlungen, 
225(2): 275-296. 


80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of Mastodon waringi Holland, 1920 
(currently Haplomastodon waringi; Mammalia, Proboscidea) by designation of a 
neotype 

(Case 3480; see BZN 66: 164-167, 358-359; 67: 96, 181-182, 333) 


Maria Teresa Alberdi 


Departamento de Paleobiologia, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC, José 
Gutiérrez Abascal, 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain (e-mail: malberdi@mncn.csic.es) 


Joaquin Arroyo-Cabrales 


Laboratorio de Arqueozoologia ““M. en C. Ticul Alvarez Solorzano”’, Subdireccion 
de Laboratorios y Apoyo Académico, INAH, Moneda # 16, Col. Centro, 06060 
Mexico, D.F., Mexico (e-mail: arromatuS@yahoo.com.mx) 


Eduardo Corona-M. 


Centro INAH Morelos, Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Matamoros 
14, Acapatzingo, Cuernavaca, Morelos C.P. 62440, Mexico 
(e-mail: ecoroma09@gmail.com) 


José Luis Prado 


INCUAPA, Departamento de Arqueologia, Universidad Nacional del Centro, Del 
Valle 5737, B7400J WI Olavarria, Argentina (e-mail: jprado@soc.unicen.edu.ar) 


Oscar J. Polacot (deceased) 


Laboratorio de Arqueozoologia ““M. en C. Ticul Alvarez Solérzano”’, Subdireccién 
de Laboratorios y Apoyo Académico, INAH, Moneda # 16, Col. Centro, 06060 
Mexico, D.F., Mexico 


We certainly recognise the problem suggested by Lucas (BZN 67: 181) in regard to 
the name differences between the South American gomphotheres. However, before 
dealing with the question as to whether or not a neotype for Mastodon waringi should 
be proposed, we consider that a decision in regard to the validity or otherwise of the 
genus name Haplomastodon should be made. In that regard, the following statements 
should be considered during the discussion of Lucas’s proposal: 

(1) Supporting the use of the name Haplomastodon Hoffstetter, 1950, characterised 
by the absence of foramina transversa in the atlas. This name was proposed as a 
subgenus of Stegomastodon with type species Mastodon chimborazi Proanio, 1922. 

The diagnostic characters of the subgenus Haplomastodon indicated by Hoffstetter 
(1950, 1952) are not significant, because they are the same as those of the genus 
Stegomastodon, and some of them (i.e. open foramina) are quite variable, as pointed 
out by Simpson & Paula Couto (1957). These authors also looked in detail for the 
differences between Stegosmastodon and Haplomastodon, finding that there were 
really very few and concluding that the latter genus would be a morphological 
intermediate between Cuvieronius and Stegomastodon; the same conclusion was 
stated by the authors in their Summary (p. 185), i.e. Haplomastodon is believed to be 
about as closely related to Cuvieronius as to Stegomastodon. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 81 


Prado et al. (2005), in agreement with Simpson & Paula Couto (1957), considered 
that the genus Haplomastodon could not be clearly differentiated from Stegomasto- 
don. The character of the foramina transversa in the atlas and axis vertebrae is 
variable in the specimens from the Araxa locality, that is, it could be either present 
or absent (Simpson & Paula Couto, 1957:167—168). The distinguishing characters 
between these genera vary greatly in respect to the animal’s age and are, therefore, 
not very good; both genera are very similar in the skull shape — elephantoid type, 
adult tusks usually straight or slightly curved at the tip and the mesial part of the 
maxilla with hemimaxilla straight and in contact (not divergent as in Cuvieronius). 

Alberdi & Prado in their studies of gomphotheres from several localities of South 
America (Alberdi et al., 2002, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2009; Alberdi & Corona, 2005; Prado 
et al., 2002, 2005; Prado & Alberdi, 2008) found specimens either with or without 
foramina transversa in the atlas within the same species. They also observed that the 
only differences between the two genera (Haplomastodon and Stegomastodon) are 
found in the morphology of premolar and molar occlusal surfaces, where patterns 
(trefoils) are more complicated, or there are more accentuated plications (pticostilia) 
in Stegomastodon than in Haplomastodon, and also there are certain angulations on 
the lophGid)s more accentuated in Stegomastodon than in Haplomastodon, the last 
with more single trefoils (posttrites and prettrites) less developed than in Stegomas- 
todon where they are more complicated. The differential characters of both genera are 
not enough to separate those taxa at the genus level, but only as subgenera. 

Consequently, Prado et al. (2005) synonymised Haplomastodon with Stegomasto- 
don, including two species: S. waringi and S. platensis. 

(2) The proposal of Mastodon waringi as the neotype for the genus Haplomastodon 
by Lucas (BZN 66: 164) and supported by Pasenko (BZN 67: 96) should be overruled 
since the main problem would be confirming whether or not Haplomastodon is a 
junior synonym of Stegomastodon as we assessed. Furthermore, Ferretti’s (BZN 66: 
358) proposal for designating Mastodon chimborazi as a neotype should be also 
questioned on the same grounds as those mentioned above, unless a decision is taken 
with regard to changing the generic status of Haplomastodon. 


Additional references 


Alberdi, M.T., Cerdefio, E. & Prado, J.L. 2008. Stegomastodon platensis (Proboscidea, 
Gomphotheriidae) en el Pleistoceno de Santiago del Estero, Argentina. Ameghiniana, 
45(2): 257-271. 

Alberdi, M.T. & Corona, E.M. 2005. Revision de los gonfoterios en el Cenozoico tardio de 
México. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Geologicas, 22(2): 246-260. 

Alberdi, M.T., Juarez-Woo, J., Polaco, O.J. & Arroyo-Cabrales, J. 2009. Description of the 
most complete skeleton of Stegomastodon (Mammalia, Gomphotheriidae) recorded for 
the Mexican Late Pleistocene. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Geologie und Paldontologie, Abhanda- 
lungen, 251: 239-255. 

Alberdi, M.T., Prado, J.L., Perea, D. & Ubilla, M. 2007. Stegomastodon waringi (Mammalia, 
Proboscidea) from the Late Pleistocene of northeastern Uruguay. Neues Jahrbuch fiir 
Geologie und Paldontologie, Abhandlungen, 243(2): 179-189. 

Hofistetter, R. 1952. Les mammifeéres Pléistocénes de la République de L’Equateur. Mémoires 
de la Société Géologique de France, Nouvelle Série, 31: 1-391. 

Prado, J.L. & Alberdi, M.T. 2008. A Cladistic Analysis among Trilophodont Gomphotheres 
(Mammalia, Proboscidea). With Special Attention to the South American Genera. 
Palaleontology, 51(4): 903-915. 


82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


OPINION 2266 (Case 3494) 


Atlanta inflata Gray, 1850 (Mollusca, Gastropoda, PTEROTRACHEOIDEA, 
ATLANTIDAE): Specific name conserved 


Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name of the heteropod Atlanta 
inflata Gray, 1850 (ATLANTIDAE), originally published as a primary homonym of the 
pteropod Atlanta inflata d’Orbigny, 1836 (usually cited as Limacina inflata, currently 
Heliconoides inflata) (LIMACINIDAE), is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary 
homonym. This conserves the name of a heteropod commonly found in Pacific Ocean 
plankton. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; Heteropoda; Pteropoda; 
PTEROTRACHEOIDEA; ATLANTIDAE; LIMACINIDAE; Atlanta; Limacina; Atlanta inflata; 
Heliconoides inflata; gastropods. 


Ruling 
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the specific name Atlanta 
inflata Gray, 1850 is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym 

of Atlanta inflata d’Orbigny, 1836. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology: 

(a) inflata Gray, 1850, as published in the binomen Atlanta inflata, with the 
endorsement that it is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary 
homonym of Atlanta inflata dOrbigny, 1836; 

(b) inflata d’Orbigny, 1836, as published in the binomen Atlanta inflata. 


History of Case 3494 


An application to conserve the specific name of the heteropod Atlanta inflata Gray, 
1850 (ATLANTIDAB), originally published as a primary homonym of the pteropod 
Atlanta inflata d’Orbigny, 1836 (usually cited as Limacina inflata, currently Helico- 
noides inflata) (LIMACINIDAE) by ruling that the name is not invalid by reason of being 
a junior primary homonym was received from Arie W. Janssen (National Natural 
History Museum, Leiden, The Netherlands) and Roger R. Seapy (California State 
University, Fullerton, California, U.S.A.) on 21 April 2009. After correspondence the 
case was published in BZN 66: 247-249 (September 2009). The title, abstract and 
keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments 
were received on this case. 


Decision of the Commission 


On 1 September 2010 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 66: 248. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
2010 the votes were as follows: 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 83 


Affirmative votes — 22: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, 
Halliday, Harvey, Kojima, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Minelli, Papp, Patterson, 
Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Winston, Yanega, Zhang and Zhou. 

Negative votes — 3: Lamas, Lim and Pape. 

Alonso-Zarazaga, Ng and Pyle were on leave of absence. 

Voting AGAINST, Lamas said that he felt the authors had presented no quantified 
evidence on how ‘well-known’ the name Af/anta inflata Gray, 1850 was, therefore he 
saw no strong need to conserve this primary homonymous name, particularly if a 
junior subjective synonym (Atlanta quoyii Gray, 1850) was available. He also noted 
that the work by Richter (1974), who supported this synonymy, was not listed among 
the references. 


Original references 


The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 


inflata, Atlanta, Gray, 1850, Explanation to the plates. In Gray, M.E. Figures of molluscous 
animals selected from various authors, etched for the use of students, vol. 4, Longman, 
Brown, Green & Longmans, London, p. 101. 

inflata, Atlanta, @Orbigny, 1836, Voyage dans l’Amérique meéridionale ..., vol. 5(3). 
Mollusques, pp. 49-184. Bertrand, Paris, p. 174. 


84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


OPINION 2267 (Case 3492) 


Heliconius tristero Brower, 1996 and Heliconius melpomene mocoa 
Brower, 1996 (Lepidoptera: NYMPHALIDAE): suppression of Heliconius 
melpomene bellula Brown, 1979 not approved 


Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the application for the proposed conser- 
vation of the species-group names Heliconius tristero Brower, 1996 and Heliconius 
melpomene mocoa Brower, 1996 (Lepidoptera: NYMPHALIDAE) for mimetic butterflies 
from the Putumayo region of southeastern Colombia by suppressing the senior name 
Heliconius melpomene bellula Brown, 1979 is not approved. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Lepidoptera; NYMPHALIDAE; Helico- 
nius; Heliconius tristero; Heliconius melpomene mocoa; Heliconius melpomene bellula; 
butterflies; Colombia. 


Ruling 
(1) Itis hereby ruled that the application for the proposed suppression of the name 
Heliconius melpomene bellula Brown, 1979 is not approved. 
(2) No names are placed on the Official Lists or Indexes in this ruling. 


History of Case 3492 


An application to conserve the species-group names Heliconius tristero Brower, 1996 
and Heliconius melpomene mocoa Brower, 1996 (Lepidoptera: NYMPHALIDAE) for 
mimetic butterflies from the Putumayo region of southeastern Colombia by suppress- 
ing the senior name Heliconius melpomene bellula Brown, 1979, was received from 
Andrew V.Z. Brower (Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN, U.S.A.) 
on 10 April 2009. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 66: 256-260 
(September 2009). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the 
Commission’s website. No comments were received on this case. 


Decision of the Commission 


On | September 2010 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 66: 258. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
2010 the votes were as follows: | 

Affirmative votes — 10: Ballerio, Brothers, Halliday, Harvey, Lamas, Minelli, Papp, 
Winston, Yanega and Zhou. 

Negative votes — 13: Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Grygier, Kojima, Kottelat, Kullander, 
Lim, Pape, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol and Zhang. 

Fautin and Krell abstained. Alonso-Zarazaga, Ng and Pyle were on leave of 
absence. 

Grygier, voting AGAINST, said this Case was premature, inasmuch as it pertained 
to very recent, ongoing and still unstable taxonomy, and because the hypothetical 
other ‘parent’ taxon (besides tristero) of the supposedly hybrid holotype of bellula 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 85 


had not been confirmed. Whether that taxon exists, and whether it proves to be a 
subspecies of tristero or a different species entirely, would have a bearing on the 
availability of bellula, as paragraph 5 already suggested (N.B.: ‘species’ in line 6 of 
that paragraph should be ‘subspecies’). Kottelat, voting AGAINST, was also 
disappointed in the case and felt it was confused and conjectural. He said that this 
was a taxonomic rather than a nomenclatural issue. Unless and until demonstrated, 
the hybrid hypothesis remained only a hypothesis, which was not a reason to 
suppress a name. He also commented that it was hard to imagine that a name first 
created in 1996 was now so important that it could not disappear. 


No names are placed on Official Lists or Indexes and the issue is left open for 
subsequent workers to follow the precepts of the Code or to make new proposals to 
the Commission. 


86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


OPINION 2268 (Case 3473) 


Conops testaceus Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Myopa testacea; Insecta, 
Diptera): specific name conserved by designation of a neotype 


Abstract. The Commission has conserved the established usage of the specific name 
Myopa testacea (Linnaeus, 1767) for a well-known and widespread species of 
thick-headed fly (Diptera, CONoPIDAE) by setting aside all previous type fixations and 
designating a neotype. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Diptera; CONOPIDAE; MYOPINAE; Myopa; Myopa 
testacea; thick-headed flies; Palaearctic region. 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary power all previous type fixations for the nominal species 
Conops testaceus Linnaeus, 1767 are hereby set aside and the male specimen 
labelled ‘NEOTYPE designated by D.K. Clements, J.-H. Stuke & PJ. 
Chandler’ and deposited in the Natural History Museum, London, is hereby 
designated as the neotype. 

(2) The name festaceus Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Conops 
testacea (spelling emended to testaceus in this Opinion) and as defined by the 
neotype designated in (1) above is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology. 


History of Case 3473 


An application to conserve the established usage of the name Conops testaceus 
Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Myopa testacea) by setting aside all previous type fixations 
and designating a neotype was received from D.K. Clements (Cardiff, U_K.), J.-H. 
Stuke (Leer, Germany) and P.J. Chandler (Melksham, Wiltshire, U.K.) on 21 July 
2008. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 65: 294-299 (December 
2008). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commis- 
sion’s website. No comments were received on this case. 


Decision of the Commission 


On 1 December 2009 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 65: 297. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 
2010 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 21: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Halliday, 
Harvey, Kottelat, Lamas, Lim, Minelli, Ng, Pape, Papp, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, 
Winston, Yanega, Zhang and Zhou. 

Negative votes — 6: Alonso-Zarazaga, Grygier, Kojima, Krell, Kullander and 
Patterson. 

Pyle was on leave of absence. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 87 


Although he voted FOR, Grygier said he can not accept the arguments in 
paragraph 15 on selection of a neotype from north-western Europe when Linnaeus 
described the species from ‘Europa australis’. Grygier said the new type locality will 
be too far away from the old, and naming of a neotype from southern Europe should 
await the resolution of the taxonomic situation there. Harvey, voting FOR, pointed 
out that the specific epithet in this application should be corrected to Conops 
testaceus. Kottelat said he voted FOR because of the reported uncertainties as to 
whether or not the ‘lectotype’ was effectively part of the type series. Winston also 
voted FOR as she felt the proposals could be justified in terms of usage and stability, 
but expressed concern that the argument seemed very subjective. 

Voting AGAINST, Alonso-Zarazaga said that this case had multiple flaws, 
starting with the name Conops testacea, which should have been spelled Conops 
testaceus. He went on to say that, having worked also on Linnaeus’s collection, he 
understood that it might be difficult to accept that a supposed Linnaean type 
specimen did not match one’s expectations but, in his opinion, the authors did not 
show enough evidence of the type specimen of C. testaceus being false. Usually these 
were the specimens Linnaeus studied. He observed that there was no alternative name 
available for the species with the wholly black thorax, even if there were synonymous 
names whose types should have been studied. Alonso-Zarazaga stated that the 
options were the authors’ or none. He went on to add that since the systematics of 
the group is unclear according to the authors, a vote now on a name would result in 
unpredictable consequences at the very least. Voting AGAINST, Kojima felt that 
neither the ‘exceptional need’ required for designation of a neotype by Article 75.3 
nor the ‘lack of accord’ between the existing name-bearing type and the prevailing 
usage of names required by Article 75.6 were demonstrated in this Case; he said that 
the concept of the species known as Conops testaceus had been well established and 
thus there was no exceptional need to designate a neotype and that though the 
authors were not certain whether Thompson’s (1997) lectotype designation was valid, 
Thompson’s interpretation had not been accepted by the dipterist community. He 
suggested that in order to stabilise the name Conops testacea it would be sufficient for 
the authors to ask the Commission to use its plenary power to rule that the sole 
specimen standing under the name Conops testaceus in the Linnaean collection was 
not a syntype. Krell, voting AGAINST, said the intent of the authors was certainly 
useful to maintain stability of usage of Myopa testacea. However, the designation 
of a neotype was not sufficiently justified. He felt it was clear from the original 
description that the specimen Linnaeus referred to came from Peder/Peter Ascanius. 
To designate a neotype, Krell would have liked to see a statement that no Ascanius 
material could be traced, or that Ascanius’s collection was destroyed. Krell said 
that although he hadn’t received Ascanius’s (1921), biography (Entomologiske 
Meddelelser, 15(1): 35-37), Hylleberg (2009, Steenstrupia, 31 (1): 1-101) indicates 
that Ascanius was affiliated with a natural history collection, the Natural- og 
Husholdnings-Cabinettet (The Naturalia and MHousekeeping Cabinet) at 
Charlottenborg. According to the Danish Natural History Museum (http://zoologi. 
snm.ku.dk/english/Om_Zoologisk_Museum/History/Museets_historie/), in 1772 the 
Cabinet was transferred to the university in Copenhagen. Krell thus concluded 
he would not accept the neotypification without having checked whether any of 
Ascanius’s material was in Copenhagen and would like to see a statement that there 


88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


was no suitable specimen to select as a neotype in all of Linnaeus’s collections 
(including Uppsala). 


Original reference 
The following is the original reference to the name placed on the Official List by the 
ruling given in the present Opinion: 


testaceus, Conops, Linnaeus, 1767, Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, part 2. Salvii, Holmiae, 
p. 1006 [spelling emended from Conops testacea]. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 89 


OPINION 2269 (Case 3487) 


Megalosaurus crenatissimus Depéret, 1896 (currently Majungasaurus 
crenatissimus; Dinosauria, Theropoda): designation of a neotype 


Abstract. The prevailing usage and concept of the species Megalosaurus crenatissimus 
Depéret, 1896 (currently Majungasaurus crenatissimus) has been conserved by 
replacement of the existing, non-diagnostic holotype with a neotype. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Archosauria; Dinosauria; Theropoda; 
ABELISAURIDAE; Majungasaurus; Megalosaurus; Megalosaurus  crenatissimus; 
Madagascar; Cretaceous. 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that all previous type fixations 
for the nominal species crenatissimus Depéret, 1896, as published in the 
binomen Megalosaurus crenatissimus, are hereby set aside and the specimen 
MNHN.MAJ 1 (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris) is hereby 
designated as the neotype. 

(2) The name Majungasaurus Lavocat, 1955 (gender: masculine), type species by 
original designation Megalosaurus crenatissimus Depéret, 1896, is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name crenatissimus Depéret, 1896, as published in the binomen Megalo- 
saurus crenatissimus and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above 
(specific name of the type species of Majungasaurus Lavocat, 1955), is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 


History of Case 3487 


An application to conserve the prevailing usage and concept of the species Megalo- 
saurus crenatissimus Depéret, 1896 (currently Majungasaurus crenatissimus) by 
replacing the existing, non-diagnostic holotype with a neotype was received from 
Matthew T. Carrano (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, U.S.A.), David W. 
Krause (Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, U.S.A.), Patrick M. O’Connor 
(Ohio University, Athens, OH, U.S.A.) and Scott D. Sampson (University of Utah, 
Salt Lake City, UT, U.S.A.) on 4 February 2009. After correspondence the case was 
published in BZN 66: 261-264 (September 2009). The title, abstract and keywords of 
the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments were received on 
this case. 


Decision of the Commission 


On | September 2010 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 66: 263. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
2010 the votes were as follows: 


90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


Affirmative votes — 25: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, 
Halliday, Harvey, Kojima, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Lim, Minelli, Pape, 
Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Winston, Yanega, Zhang and Zhou. 

Negative votes — 0. 

Alonso-Zarazaga, Ng and Pyle were on leave of absence. 


Voting FOR, Kojima felt there was confusion in the usage of the term ‘holotype’ 
in the title and paragraph 10. In paragraph 1, the authors correctly referred to the 
specimens as “‘name-bearing type specimens’. As the holotype was not designated in 
the original publication these specimens were syntypes and no holotype of Megalo- 
saurus crenatissimus Depéret, 1896 was ever present unless the original isolated and 
fragmentary fossil specimens came from a single individual. Lamas also voted FOR 
and noted that both in the title and some parts of the text of the application the 
authors referred (wrongly) to a ‘holotype’ of Megalosaurus crenatissimus (e.g. in 
paragraph 10). In fact, that name was based on a type series consisting of ‘isolated 
and fragmentary fossils’, not upon a single specimen. Nevertheless, Lamas supported 
the petition for designation of a neotype under the Commission’s plenary power. 


Original references 


The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the 
ruling given in the present Opinion: 


crenatissimus, Megalosaurus, Depéret, 1896, Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, (3)24: 
188. 

Majungasaurus Lavocat, 1955, Bulletin du’ Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 
(2)27(3):.259. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 1) 


OPINION 2270 (Case 3440) 


Atrichornis Stejneger, 1885 (Aves, ATRICHORNITHIDAE): generic name 
conserved 


Abstract. The Commission has conserved the current usage of the widely used generic 
name Atrichornis Stejneger, 1885, which has been in universal use as a valid generic 
name for almost 90 years, for the Australian scrub-birds (ATRICHORNITHIDAE), by 
suppression of the name Atricha Gould, 1844, which was used in the incorrect 
subsequent spelling Atrichia for the scrub-birds into the first decade or so of the 20th 
century. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; ATRICHORNITHIDAE; Atrichornis; Atricha; 
Atrichia; Atrichornis rufescens; scrub-birds; Australia. 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the generic name Atricha 
Gould, [January] 1844 is suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of 
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name Atrichornis Stejneger, 1885 (gender: masculine), type species by 
monotypy Atrichia rufescens Ramsay, 1866, is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name rufescens Ramsay, 1866, as published in the binomen Atrichia 
rufescens (specific name of the type species of Atrichornis Stejneger, 1885), is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name Atricha Gould, [January] 1844, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby 
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology. 


History of Case 3440 


An application to conserve the generic name Africhornis Stejneger, 1885, which has 
been in universal use as a valid generic name for almost 90 years for the Australian 
scrub-birds (ATRICHORNITHIDAE), by suppression under Article 23.9.3 of the name 
Atricha Gould, 1844, which was used in the incorrect subsequent spelling Atrichia for 
the scrub-birds into the first decade or so of the 20th century, was received from 
Richard Schodde (Australian Biological Resources Study, Canberra, Australia) and 
Walter J. Bock (Columbia University, New York, NY, U.S.A.) on 19 April 2007. After 
correspondence the case was published in BZN 65: 42-45 (March 2008). The title, 
abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No 
comments were received on this case. 


Decision of the Commission 


On 1 March 2009 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 65: 44. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 2009 
the votes were as follows: 


92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 


Affirmative votes — 18: Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, Halliday, 
Kottelat, Krell, Lamas, Minelli, Ng, Pape, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol 
and Zhang. 

Negative votes — 3: Alonso-Zarazaga, Kullander and Lim. 

Pyle was on leave of absence. 

Alonso-Zarazaga, voting AGAINST, said he considered the application to start 
from a faulty point: that The Athenaeum was a published work in the sense of the 
Code, because it failed to comply with the requirements of Article 8.1.1: it must be 
issued for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record. The 
Athenaeum was a newspaper and did not have this as its main purpose. The Oxford 
Universal Dictionary Illustrated defines newspaper as ‘a printed, now usually daily or 
weekly, publication containing news, advertisements, literary matter, and other items 
of public interest’. Nothing indicated that newspapers were published for scientific 
record of any kind, which was common sense. If the Commission failed to recognise 
this, anything printed would become ‘scientific record’ and there were thousands of 
newspapers in all world languages. Many of these might carry names and descrip- 
tions in advance of their publication in scientific academic’) journals or books, 
especially in the case of ‘flagship’ or charismatic animals, like dinosaurs.’ Ng, voting 
FOR, agreed that the genus name in question for the scrub-birds was worthy of 
conservation. Changing the status quo helped no one in these circumstances and 
might affect conservation regimes and research. 


Original references 


The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes 
by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 


Atrichornis Steyneger, 1885, Order XVIII. Passeres. Pp. 458-547 in Kingsley, J.S. (Ed.), The 
Standard Natural History, vol. 4, p. 462. 

rufescens, Atrichia, Ramsay, 1866, The Clarence and Richmond Examiner, vol. 7, n. 362, p. 2, 
col. 4. 

Atricha Gould, [January] 1844, The Athenaeum, 848: 90. 


Contents — continued 


OPINION 2268 (Case 3473). Conops testaceus Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Myopa 
testacea; Insecta, Diptera): specific name conserved by iia it of a 
neotype. .. 

OPINION 2269 or 3487). ee ee crenatissimus : Pepérer, 1896 aaetontis 
Majungasaurus_ crenatissimus; Dinosauria, Theropoda): designation of a 
neotype. . ‘ 

OPINION 2270 (Case 3440). detihered » Steneger, | 1885 5 (Aves, ATRICHORNITHIDAE): 
generic name conserved ; 


86 


89 


91 


eS 
DREN 


Eeponeont 
os 


Rae 


eas 


aout es 
Bacup nueatea ae me 


Le 


See 


Line 


oS 


sie 


etcane 


INNEIMOTI TA 


ne 


peer anies 


es 


SMITHSONIAN INSTIT 


ees 
oe 
ee 
eee 


: 
Be 
ee 


eee ui gesuacanssents 
oe oe 
eee oe . 
88 


a 
Bes 


ae 
is 


porns 
a5 


oe 
oa 


_ 
See ese 


ee 


: 


: 
if OE 
Sean 


Poniiame 


ei 


See 

AS es See: 

ee ena Se a & 
SA — Se oo 
Se OR : 


Pees 
: 


Sea onan 
oy _ 


ean 


once 


a 
Roku 
CER 


ee 


ances 


ees 
Boe 


a 
Re 


oo 
oe 


SOEUR 


fon 


Seasons 
Spoioucunaes 


So 
ae ue 


oe 
. 


see 
es 


UTION LIBRARIES 


ks 
8 
— 


sae 


. 
ee 


a 
oe 


Se 
BusoneeS 
ee 
= 
= 


Rees 


eens 
Sin 


ee: 


RRS 


Ce 
es 


a 
oe 
A Sas 


eae 


es 


oe 
. . 
— 


S 


oe 


Sea 


Seb 


ee 


COMERS 


_ 


ase 


: 


Volume 68, Part 2,30 June 2011, pp. 93-158 : ISSN 0007-5167 


The Bulletin of 
Zoological Nomenclature 


The Official Periodical 
of the International Commission 


on Zoological Nomenclature 


THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a registered charity 
(no. 211944) based in the U.K. The annual subscription for 2011 is £210 or US$360 or €295, 
postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a subscription of £105 or 
US$180 or €145. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: 

The Executive Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

Natural History Museum 

Cromwell Road 

London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. +44 207 942 5653; e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) 

Electronic communication is preferred. Manuscripts sent by post should include a digital 

copy of the text and figures. 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


Officers 
President Dr J. van Tol (The Netherlands) 
Vice-President Prof. D. G. Fautin (U.S. A.) 
Executive Secretary Dr E. Michel (U.K.) 
Councillors indicated below with * 
Members 
Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga* Prof. S. Lim (Malaysia; Parasitology) 
(Spain; Coleoptera) Prof. A. Minelli Wtaly; Myriapoda) 
Dr A. Ballerio U/taly; Coleoptera) Prof. P. K. L. Ng (Singapore; 
Dr N. G. Bogutskaya (Russia; Ichthyology) Crustacea, Ichthyology) 
Prof. P. Bouchet* (France; Mollusca) Dr T. Pape (Denmark; Diptera) 
Prof. D. J. Brothers Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera) 
(South Africa; Hymenoptera) Prof. D. J. Patterson (U.S.A.; Protista) 
Prof. D. G. Fautin (U.S.A.; Cnidaria) Dr R. Pyle* (U.S. A.; Ichthyology) 
Dr M. J. Grygier (Japan; Crustacea) Dr G. Rosenberg* (U.S. A.; Mollusca) 
Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) Prof. P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) 
Dr M. S. Harvey (Australia; Arachnida) Dr J. van Tol (The Netherlands; Odonata) 
Prof. J. Kojima (Japan; Hymenoptera) Dr J. E. Winston (U.S. A.; Bryozoa) 
Dr M. Kottelat (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Dr D. Yanega (U.S.A.; Entomology) 
Dr F.-T. Krell (U.S.A.; Coleoptera) Dr Z.-Q. Zhang (New Zealand; Acari) 


Dr S. O. Kullander (Sweden; Ichthyology) Prof. H. Zhou (China; Coleoptera) 
Prof. Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera) 
Secretariat 


Dr E. Michel (Executive Secretary and Bulletin Editor-in-Chief) 
Dr S. Nikolaeva (Bulletin Zoologist and Scientific Editor) 

S. Tracey (Bulletin Zoologist and Scientific Administrator) 

N. Dale-Skey Papilloud M.Sc. (Bulletin Zoologist) 

E. W. Baker (Webmaster and Development Officer) 


Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 
Dr M. Dixon (Chairman) 
C. Laws (Treasurer and Managing Director) 


Abstracts of Applications and Opinions, Comments in full and details of the names published 
in the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology are posted on the 
Commission’s website (http://iczn.org) 


Cover image: Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa (Linnaeus, 1758), the European mole cricket (Latin: 
gryllus — cricket, talpa — mole, from its fossorial limbs, fine hairs and subterranean habit). 
Widespread in the Western Palaearctic region and introduced into parts of the U.S.A. this 
insect can be an agricultural pest in significant numbers, although in the U.K. it is extremely 
rare and subject to a U.K. Biodiversity Action Plan (report sightings to g.beccaloni@ 
nhm.ac.uk). Detail from plate 456 of British Entomology: Original Drawings, vol. 10, by John 
Curtis (1862) (© Natural History Museum, London). 


© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2011 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 93 


BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


Volume 68, part 2 (pp. 93-158) 30 June 2011 


Notices 


(1) Applications and correspondence relating to applications to the Commission 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given on the inside of the 
front cover and on the Commission website. English is the official language of the 
Bulletin. Please take careful note of instructions to authors (present in a one or two 
page form in each volume and available online (at http://iczn.org/content/guidelines- 
case-preparation) as incorrectly formatted applications will be returned to authors 
for revision. The Commission’s Secretariat will answer general nomenclatural (as 
opposed to purely taxonomic) enquiries and assist with the formulation of applica- 
tions and, as far as it can, check the main nomenclatural references in applications. 
Correspondence should be sent by e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ where possible. 

(2) The Commission votes on applications eight months after they have been 
published, although this period is normally extended to enable comments to be 
submitted. Comments for publication relating to applications (either in support or 
against, or offering alternative solutions) should be submitted as soon as possible. 
Comments may be edited (see instructions for submission of comments at 
http://iczn.org/content/instructions-comments). 

(3) Requests for help and advice on the Code can be made direct to the 
Commission and other interested parties via the Internet. Membership of the 
Commission’s Discussion List is free of charge. You can subscribe and find out more 
about the list at http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list. 

(4) The Commission also welcomes the submission of general-interest articles on 
nomenclatural themes or nomenclatural notes on particular issues. These may deal 
with taxonomy, but should be mainly nomenclatural in content. Articles and notes 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary. 


New applications to the Commission 


The following new applications have been received since the last issue of the 
Bulletin (volume 68, part 1, 31 March 2011) went to press. Under Article 82 of 
the Code, the existing usage of names in the applications is to be maintained until the 
Commission’s rulings on the applications (the Opinions) have been published. 

CASE 3555: CHILODONTIDAE Macalister, 1876 (Ciliophora), CHILODINAE Eigen- 
mann, 1910 (Pisces, Characiformes) and CHILODONTINAE Wenz, 1938 (Mollusca, 
Gastropoda): proposed resolution of homonymy between family-group names. D.G. 
Herbert & P. Bouchet. 

CASE 3556: Protoretepora de Koninck, 1878 (Bryozoa, Fenestrata): proposed 
designation of Protoretepora crockfordae Wyse Jackson, Reid & McKinney, 2011 as 
the type species. P.N. Wyse Jackson, C.M. Reid & F.K. McKinney. 


94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


CASE 3557: Zanthomiza Swainson, 1837 and Gliciphila Swainson, 1837 (Aves, 
Passeriformes): proposed conservation of original spellings. S.M.S. Gregory, W.E. 
Boles & L. Christidis. 

CASE 3558: Pleurotoma scabriusculum Brugnone, 1862 (currently Mangelia scabri- 
uscula; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation. D. Scarponi, A. 
Ceregato & J.K. Tucker. 

CASE 3559: Meliboeus violaceus Kiesenwetter, 1857 (Insecta, Coleoptera): pro- 
posed precedence. H. Mile. 

CASE 3560: Plateosaurus Meyer, 1837 (Dinosauria, Sauropodomorpha): proposed 
conservation of usage by designation of a neotype for its type species Plateosaurus 
engelhardti Meyer, 1837. P.M. Galton. 

CASE 3561: Anchisaurus Marsh, 1885 (Dinosauria, Sauropodomorpha): proposed 
conservation of usage by designation of a neotype for its type species Megadactylus 
polyzelus Hitchcock, 1865. P.M. Galton. 

CASE 3562: Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 (Dinosauria, 
Theropoda, Aves): proposed correction to Opinion 607. J. Mlikovsky 

CASE 3563: Pachylemur Lamberton, 1948 (Primates, LEMURIDAE): proposed 
conservation of the generic name. J. Zijlstra, C. Groves & A. Dunkel. 

CASE 3564: Grallaria fenwickorum Barrera & Bartels, 2010 (Aves, GRALLARIIDAE): 
proposed confirmation of unavailability. S. Claramunt. 

CASE 3565: Aphaenops Bonvouloir, 1862 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed con- 
servation of spelling of instead of Aphoenops. A. Faille, A. Casale, T.C. Barr, Jr., & 
A. Vigna Taglianti. 

CASE 3566: Tropidolaemus Wagler, 1830 and Cophias wagleri H. Boie in Schlegel, 
1826 (currently Tropidolaemus wagleri) (Reptilia, Serpentes, VIPERIDAE): proposed 
conservation. J.M. Savage. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 95 


Contributions to the Discussion on Electronic Publication VII 
Comment on the proposed amendment to the International Code of 
Zoological Nomenclature 


Lee Namba 


Enterprise Architect, ATOS Origin, Paris, France 
(e-mail: lee namba@atosorigin.com) 


with Francisco Welter-Schultes, BHL-Europe, as intermediary 


As a professional archivist working at the forefront of digital information architec- 
ture for ATOS Origin (an international IT company) I was interested in the archiving 
challenge posed by the ICZN’s proposed amendment allowing e-only publication. It 
has been explained by members of the BHL/BHL-Europe team (for which I am 
working on digital archiving issues) that the biological community wishes taxonomic 
publications to remain accessible and in their original format on the timescale of 
hundreds of years. 

I see only two proven technologies that allow preservation of original information 
over a long time: paper and stone. All other media have not been proven to last long. 
Stone is clearly problematic because little information can be preserved and must be 
reduced to text. Short law texts can be carved in stone. Paper is more powerful, but 
it has shortcomings having to do with its sensitivity to fire and water. A proven 
strategy to overcome this problem has been the production of multiple identical 
copies in combination with experienced archival systems paid for by public and 
private institutions to preserve and protect these copies against vandalism and 
theft. 

In the electronic age — which effectively began in the 1960s — no such archival 
systems have yet been successfully installed. In fact there are bad experiences where 
important information was lost. Sometimes the data as such were not lost, but the 
ability to read (or decode) them no longer exists. Without conserved knowledge on 
file formats and without knowing and having the programs and versions that were 
once able to read these files, the electronic information contained will remain 
inaccessible. An example from NASA’s Mars Lander records is well-known (e.g. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Dark_Age); despite its excellent funding, NASA 
lost key information due to archiving issues. 

In 2001/2002 NASA and others defined a strategy for long-term archiving of 
electronic information called the Open Archival Information System (OAIS), but this 
is only a ‘functional standard’ to build such a system. It involves changes of storage 
media and formats, running many times over 1000s of years. Many questions remain 
open for installing such systems; among these are funding sources for transfer 
processes to update media systems and formats, technologies for copying software 
and related issues. From a cost perspective, storing information digitally will be 
expensive since it will be necessary to upgrade the systems technology every 
generation or so. 

ATOS Origin has been asked to help with long-term archival systems for an 
increasing number of private companies and public institutions that are beginning to 
realise that they are losing their files. This has often to do with dictated technology 


96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


changes or technologies no longer being supported by IBM and other global players 
in this market. 

For example, a major national library has had its original archiving contract no 
longer supported by the proprietary software provider, so they are forced to change 
the system. Electronic medical and tax files do not need to be archived for such long 
durations, and consequently no appropriate strategies have been developed and 
approved for this kind of public purpose. 

For an archival system as required by the nomenclatural community, which 
involves access to originally deposited and unmodified information in time spans of 
several centuries, I can only recommend using a system that works with multiple 
copies printed on paper, and depositing sufficient numbers of such copies in public 
library institutions. Electronic files can be repeatedly derived from paper copies, in 
whatever format required by the time and the user’s needs. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 97 


Case 3518 


Cornu Born, 1778 (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Pulmonata, HELICIDAE): 
request for a ruling on the availability of the generic name 


Robert H. Cowie 


Center for Conservation Research and Training, Pacific Biosciences Research 
Center, University of Hawaii, 3050 Maile Way, Gilmore 408, Honolulu, 
Hawaii 96822, U.S.A. (e-mail: cowie@hawaii.edu) 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 78.2.3 and 80.2.1 of the 
Code, is to suggest a possible interpretation of Article 1.3.2 in relation to the 
availability of the generic name Cornu Born, 1778 for a genus of land snails (family 
HELICIDAE). There has been longstanding confusion regarding the correct generic 
combination for the well-known, common and widely introduced land snail orig- 
inally described as Helix aspersa Miller, 1774, that is, whether it should be placed in 
Cornu Born, 1778, Cantareus Risso, 1826 or Cryptomphalus Charpentier, 1837. The 
confusion has arisen primarily because of differing interpretations of Article 1.3.2 in 
relation to the original proposal of the genus-group name Cornu Born, 1778 for the 
species Cornu copiae Born, 1778, which was based on a teratological specimen of 
Helix aspersa Miller, 1774. It is proposed that the wording of Article 1.3.2 be 
interpreted to confirm the availability of Cornu Born, 1778. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mollusca; Gastropoda; Pulmonata; HELICIDAE; 
Helix; Cantareus; Cornu; Cryptomphalus; Cornu copiae; Helix aperta; Helix aspersa; 
brown garden snail; Europe; introduced species. 


1. The well-known, common and widely introduced Western European land snail 
species (the brown garden snail, common garden snail or simply the garden snail) 
that has long been known as Helix aspersa Miller, 1774 (p. 59) (e.g. Pilsbry, 1894, 
p. 311; Kerney & Cameron, 1979, p. 205) is an ecologically important species, with 
established introductions in many regions of the world (Barker, 1999, p. 62; Cowie, 
2001, p. 125; Roth & Sadeghian, 2003, p. 35; Herbert, 2010, p. 50; Stanisic et al., 
2010, p. 520). It is a commercially important species in France and Belgium, and to 
a lesser extent in the rest of Europe and North Africa, in French known as the 
‘escargot petit-gris’ (e.g. Bonnet et al., 1990; Jess & Marks, 1995; Dupont-Nivet et al., 
2000; Herbert & Kilburn, 2004). There is therefore a considerable body of scientific 
and non-scientific literature on this species, yet there is much recent and continuing 
confusion and hence lack of stability regarding its correct generic placement. The 
name Helix aspersa Miller, 1774 is on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 
(Opinion 336, Opinions and Declarations, 10: 77-108, March 1955). While there 
is almost general agreement that it should not be retained in Helix Linnaeus, 
1758, there is much disagreement about its correct placement. It has been placed by 
various modern authors in the genera Cornu Born, 1778 (e.g. Falkner et al., 2001, 
p. 65; Anderson, 2005, p. 627; Cowie et al., 2008, p. 270; Ligaszewski et al., 2009, 


98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


p. 173; Guiller & Madec, 2010, p. 1; Stanisic et al., 2010, p. 520), Cryptomphalus 
Charpentier, 1837 (e.g. Paniagua & Vazquez, 1976, p. 617; Robinson, 1999, p. 419; 
Bojat et al., 2001, p. 155; Kiss & Magnin, 2003, p. 53; Brieva et al., 2008, p. 15) and 
Cantareus Risso, 1826 (e.g. Barker, 1999, p. 62; Koene & Schulenburg, 2005, p. 2; 
Manganelli et al., 2005, p. 504; Wade et al., 2006, p. 598, 2007, p. 412; Ansart et al., 
2007, p. 71). Some authors have accepted the availability and validity of these 
genus-group names but as subgenera of He/ix Linnaeus, 1758. For example, Waldén 
(1976, p. 24) and Roth & Sadeghian (2003, p. 35) placed H. aspersa in Helix subgenus 
Cornu, while Zilch (1960, p. 722) and Giusti (1969, p. 86, 1977, p. 126) placed it in 
Helix subgenus Cryptomphalus, and Zilch (1960, p. 723), Giusti (1969, p. 88) and 
Roth & Sadeghian (2003, p. 35) placed the related Helix aperta Born, 1778 in Helix 
subgenus Cantareus. Whether or not any of these three genus-group names are 
synonyms of each other has also been the subject of much confusion. Some authors, 
either unable or unwilling to decide on the correct placement of aspersa, have left it 
in Helix (e.g. Cowie, 1997, p. 20; Rogers & Chase, 2002, p. 290; Herbert & Kilburn, 
2004, p. 275; Cameron et al., 2006, pp. 19-20). While there has been discussion of this 
issue (e.g. Giusti et al., 1996, pp. 490-491; Barker, 1999, pp. 67-68; Gerber, 2000, 
p. 44; Roth & Sadeghian, 2003, p. 35; Anderson, 2005, p. 627; Herbert, 2010, p. 52) 
and the consensus seems to lean towards accepting the availability and validity of 
Cornu and the placement of aspersa in Cornu, no definitive statement has been 
formally published and different treatments continue to appear in publications. The 
purpose of this application is formally to resolve this nomenclatural confusion, which 
stems essentially from the different views on the availability of the genus-group name 
Cornu Born, 1778. These differing views reflect the difficulty of interpreting Article 
E3.2.01 the Code. 

2. The type species of Helix Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 768) is Helix pomatia Linnaeus, 
1758 (p. 771), by subsequent designation of Montfort (1810, p. 231) (see Melville & 
Smith, 1987, p. 103). It has been appreciated long ago that this species and Helix 
aspersa Miller, 1774 are quite different, e.g. by Charpentier (1837, pp. 5—6) and 
Moquin-Tandon (1855, pp. 174, 179), who both placed them in different subgenera 
of Helix. And there is now general agreement that they are sufficiently different to 
indeed warrant placement in different genus-group taxa (e.g. Waldén, 1976, p. 24; 
Giusti et al., 1996, pp. 490, 497; Barker, 1999, p. 67; Robinson, 1999, pp. 419, 437; 
Falkner et al., 2001, p. 65; Anderson, 2005, p. 613; Koene & Schulenburg, 2005, 
p. 5; Manganelli et al., 2005, pp. 504-505; Ligaszewski et al., 2009, p. 173; Herbert, 
2OLOMp M62); 

3. The type species of Cornu Born, 1778 (p. 371) is Cornu copiae Born, 1778 
(p. 371), by monotypy. Cornu copiae was re-described and illustrated by Born (1780, 
p. 362, pl. 13, figs. 10, 11), with an additional text illustration, in fact the same one 
that appeared, without being referred to in the text, on the last page of the 1778 
publication. It is based on a scalariform (i.e. teratological) specimen of aspersa 
Miiller, 1774, on which there has been no disagreement. Some authors have 
considered copiae and Cornu unavailable based on their interpretation of Article 1.3.2 
of the Code, which states “Excluded from the provisions of the Code are names 
proposed ... for teratological specimens as such’ (e.g. Giusti et al., 1996, p. 491; 
Barker, 1999, p. 68). Others have argued that this means ‘in distinction from normal 
specimens of the same species’ (Roth & Sadeghian, 2003, p. 60), and view Born’s 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 99 


name as having been introduced for what he considered a valid and distinct species, 
rather than explicitly for a teratological specimen of an already valid species; in which 
case copiae and Cornu are available names (e.g. Gerber, 2000, p. 44). The words ‘as 
such’, and their explanation in the Glossary of the Code as meaning “Being strictly 
what has been cited’, are the source of the confusion. Shileyko (2006, p. 1817) treated 
Cornu as a nomen oblitum, with the subsequently published Cryptomphalus as the 
valid name. However, Shileyko’s action was inappropriate under Article 23.9.1.1 of 
the Code, as Cornu had been used as a valid name after 1899 (e.g. citations above), 
and his action did not fully comply with Article 23.9.2. Born clearly intended Cornu 
as a genus name, as it appeared as a heading in the same format as his other genus 
headings. His use of copiae as the species name, perhaps intended to be witty in 
combination with the genus name, is probably a reflection of the ‘cornu copiae’ (two 
words) in its original meaning derived from Greek mythology, the ‘horn of plenty’ 
(cornu, horn; copiae, genitive of copia, plenty), a spiralled goat’s horn filled with fruit 
and grain (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2010), which the scalariform shell clearly 
resembles. Modern English usage is ‘cornucopia’ as a single word, generally meaning 
a great abundance of something, although, especially in North America, it also 
means a hollow, horn-shaped wicker basket filled with various kinds of festive fruit 
and other produce. 

4. Gmelin (1791, p. 3745) listed Born’s name as the species epithet (not a 
species-genus combination) ‘Cornu copiae’ in the marine polychaete genus Serpula 
Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 1264), clearly incorrectly. Subsequently, Cornu copiae was ignored 
by most major nineteenth century authors (e.g. Férussac, 1821-1822; Charpentier, 
1837; Anton, 1839, p. 33; Pfeiffer, 1853; Reeve, 1854; Moquin-Tandon, 1855; Locard, 
1880; Tryon, 1888; Pilsbry, 1894), with some exceptions. Deshayes (1832, p. 237) 
noted a monstrous variety of Helix aspersa described as ‘cornu-formi’ without 
reference to Born, and subsequently (Deshayes, 1838, p. 33) cited Born’s illustration, 
but without giving the name itself, in the synonymy of Helix aspersa. Beck (1838, 
p. 40) listed ‘Cornucopia’, attributed to Born and also citing Gmelin, in the synonymy 
of aspersa (in error as ‘adspersa’) as a monstrous form with separated whorls 
(‘monstrosa anfractibus dissolutis’). Gray (1847, p. 171) listed “Cornucopia, Born’ as a 
genus name and a synonym of “Helix Risso, 1826’, with type species Helix ‘adspersa’, 
presumably again in error for aspersa. Forbes & Hanley (1853, p. 45), cited Born’s 
work in the synonymy of aspersa, under ‘“Monstrosities’, but did not list the actual 
name. Taylor (1910, p. 268, fig. 325) listed it as ‘Monst. cornucopiae Gmelin’, under 
aspersa, but with ‘Cornu copiae Born’, as the earliest entry in the synonymy. Germain 
(1930, pp. 182-189) made no mention of it. While this survey of the literature has not 
been exhaustive, Taylor’s treatment may be the first to approach formal and correct 
synonymisation of the genus-species combination Cornu copiae as a synonym of 
Helix aspersa by including Born’s name correctly as a genus-species combination. 
Nonetheless, all these various treatments of Born’s names (except Gmelin), together 
as one word as either a genus-group synonym of Helix or a species-group synonym 
of aspersa, or by implication by citing Born’s work, clearly intended that Cornu 
copiae Born be treated as a monstrous form and therefore a junior synonym of 
aspersa. Modern authors (see the preceding paragraph) agree with this interpretation. 
However, for much of the twentieth century, malacologists rarely referred to Cornu, 
with the exception of Pilsbry (1948, p. 1091), who acknowledged it as a senior 


100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


synonym of Cryptomphalus (as a subgenus of Helix) and synonymised Cornu copiae 
Born, 1778 with Helix aspersa Miller, 1774. Pilsbry’s recognition of Cornu was 
ignored, possibly because it was buried in the ‘Additions and Corrections’ of his 
work, until Waldén (1976, pp. 24-25) again acknowledged the availability of Cornu 
and set the scene for the subsequent discussions, referred to above, that have led to 
the current position of the availability of Cornu needing to be clarified. 

5. The type species of Cantareus Risso, 1826 (p. 64) is Helix naticoides Draparnaud, 
1801 (p. 78), a subjective junior synonym of Helix aperta Born, 1778 (p. 399) (e.g. 
Forbes & Hanley, 1853, p. 43; Pilsbry, 1889, p. 255, Woodward, 1917, p. 220; Zilch, 
1960, p. 723), by monotypy. 

6. The type species of Cryptomphalus Charpentier, 1837 (p. 5) is Helix aspersa 
Muller, 1774 (p. 59), by subsequent designation of Pilsbry (1889, p. 235). Hence, if 
Cornu is considered available, with type species Cornu copiae (= Helix aspersa), 
Cryptomphalus is a junior subjective synonym of Cornu, subjective because it depends 
on the judgment, which is confirmed in the literature, of copiae and aspersa being 
synonyms (see above). In addition, with Cornu considered available, if aperta and 
aspersa are considered congeneric, then Cantareus (type species Helix naticoides 
(= Helix aperta, see above)) also becomes a junior subjective synonym of Cornu. 

7. Held (1837, p. 910) placed Helix aspersa Miller, 1774 in combination with an 
additional genus-group name, his new name Coenatoria Held, 1837. The type species 
of Coenatoria is Helix pomatia Linnaeus, 1758, by subsequent designation of 
Herrmannsen (1847, p. 269), which thereby renders Coenatoria a junior objective 
synonym of Helix Linnaeus, 1758. Subsequently, Shileyko (2006, p. 1817) invalidly 
designated aspersa as the type species of Coenatoria and placed Coenatoria with 
Cornu in the synonymy of Cryptomphalus. Coenatoria has not been mentioned in the 
controversy over the correct generic placement of aspersa. 

8. While the relationship of aperta and aspersa is a taxonomic rather than a 
nomenclatural issue and thus not under the jurisdiction of the Commission, the 
correct interpretation of Article 1.3.2 of the Code is a purely nomenclatural issue. 
This is the underlying issue in the present case. The correct interpretation seems to be 
that Cornu copiae Born, 1778 is available despite being based on a teratological 
specimen, since the description did not refer to the specimen as teratological ‘as such’, 
that is, it did not explicitly acknowledge it as an aberrant or monstrous specimen of 
a known species, and there is no explicit indication that it was not intended as a 
genuine description of a new species. Hence, Helix aspersa Miiller, 1774, as the 
subjective senior synonym of the type species of Cornu, Cornu copiae Born, 1778, 
should be placed in combination with Cornu, the oldest available genus-group name, 
if Helix Linnaeus, 1758 is considered inappropriate. 

9. Considering the importance of stable use of the name of this snail the 
Commission is requested, in accordance with Articles 78.2.3 and 80.2.1, to use its 
specific power to interpret the provisions of Article 1.3.2 of the Code and to rule on 
the availability of the name Cornu copiae Born, 1778. 

10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to rule that the name copiae Born, 1778, as published in the binomen Cornu 

copiae, is not unavailable by reason of being based on a teratological specimen, 
as it was not explicitly described as such, under Article 1.3.2 of the Code; 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 101 


(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Cornu 
Born, 1778 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy Cornu copiae Born, 
1778, with the endorsement that it is not unavailable by reason of being based 
on a teratological specimen, as ruled in (1) above; 

(3) to amend the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for the 
name aspersa Miller, 1774, as published in the binomen Helix aspersa to 
record that this is the valid name of the type species of Cornu Born, 1778 (a 
senior subjective synonym of copiae Born, 1778, as published in the binomen 
Cornu copiae). 


Acknowledgements 


I thank Neal Evenhuis and especially Philippe Bouchet for discussion, assistance with 
literature and comments on a draft, Barry Roth for discussion, and Ruud Bank, 
Jochen Gerber and Patrick Schembri for assistance with literature. 


References 


Anonymous. 2010. Cornucopia. Jn Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved December 15, 2010, 
from Encyclopaedia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/ 
13808 1/cornucopia 

Anderson, R. 2005. An annotated list of the non-marine Mollusca of Britain and Ireland. 
Journal of Conchology, 38(6): 607-637. 

Ansart, A., Madec, L. & Vernon, P. 2007. Supercooling ability is surprisingly invariable in eggs 
of the land snail Cantareus aspersus. Cryobiology, 54: 71-76. 

Anton, H.E. 1838. Verzeichniss der Conchylien welche sich in der Sammlung von Hermann 
Eduard Anton befinden. xvi, 110 pp. Eduard Anton, Halle. 

Barker, G.M. 1999. Naturalised terrestrial Stylommatophora (Mollusca: Gastropoda). Fauna 
of New Zealand 38. 254 pp. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, Canterbury, New Zealand. 

Beck, H. 1837-1838. Index Molluscorum praesentis aevi musei principis augustissimi Christiani 
Frederici. Fasciculus primus et secundus. Mollusca gastraepoda pulmonata. 124 pp. 
[Published by the author], Hafnia [= Copenhagen]. 

Bojat, N.C., Sauder, U. & Haase, M. 2001. The spermathecal epithelium, sperm and 
their interactions in the hermaphroditic land snail Arianta arbustorum (Pulmonata, 
Stylommatophora). Zoomorphology, 120: 149-157. 

Bonnet, J.-C., Aupinel, P. & Vrillon, J.-L. 1990. L’escargot Helix aspersa: biologie-élevage. 
123 pp. Institut national de la recherche agronomique, Paris. 

Born, I. von. 1778. Index rerum naturalium Musei Caesarei Vindobonensis. Pars I“ Testacea. 
Verzeichnifb der natiirlichen Seltenheiten des k. k. Naturalien Cabinets zu Wien. Erster 
Theil. Schalthiere. x\ii, 458, [82] pp., 1 pl. J.P. Kraus, Vindobonae [= Vienna]. 

Born, I. von. 1780. Testacea Musei Cesarei Vindobonensis, quae jussu Marie Theresie Auguste 
disposuit et descripsit Ignatius a Born, Equ. xxxvi, 442, [18] pp., 18 pls. J.P. Kraus, 
Vindobonae [= Vienna]. 

Brieva, A., Philips, N., Tejedor, R., Guerrero, A., Pivel, J.P., Alonso-Lebrero, J.L. & Gonzalez, 
S. 2008. Molecular basis for the regenerative properties of a secretion of the mollusk 
Cryptomphalus aspersa. Skin Pharmacology and Physiology, 21: 15-22. 

Cameron, R.A.D., da Cunha, R.M.T. & Frias Martins, A.M. 2007. Chance and necessity: 
land-snail faunas of SAo Miguel, Azores, compared with those of Madeira. Journal of 
Molluscan Studies, 73: 11-21. 

Charpentier, J. de. 1837. Catalogue des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la Suisse. 
Formant la seconde partie de la faune Helvétique. Neue Denkschriften der Allgemeinen 
Schweizerischen Gesellschaft fiir die Gesammten Naturwissenschaften, 1(2): 1-28, pls. 1-2. 

Cowie, R.H. 1997. Catalog and bibliography of the nonindigenous nonmarine snails and slugs 
of the Hawaiian Islands. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers, 50: 1-66. 


102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


Cowie, R.H. 2001. Invertebrate invasions on Pacific islands and the replacement of unique 
native faunas: a synthesis of the land and freshwater snails. Biological Invasions, 3: 
119-136. 

Cowie, R.H., Hayes, K.A., Tran, C.T. & Meyer, W.M., III. 2008. The horticultural industry as 
a vector of alien snails and slugs: widespread invasions in Hawaii. International Journal of 
Pest Management, 54: 267-276. 

Deshayes, G.P. 1830-1832, Encyclopédie méthodique. Histoire naturelle des vers. Tome second. 
vil, 256, 594 pp. Agasse, Paris. 

Deshayes, G.P. 1838, Tome huiti¢me. Mollusques. Pp. 1-660 in Deshayes, G.P. & Milne 
Edwards, H., Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres ... Deuxiéme édition. Revue et 
augmentée de notes présentant les faits nouveaux dont la science s’est enrichie jusqu’a ce 
jour. J.B. Bailliére, Paris. 

Draparnaud, J. [1801]. Tableau des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France. 116 pp. 
Renaud, Montpellier; Bossange, Masson & Besson, Paris. 

Dupont-Nivet, M., Coste, V., Coinon, P., Bonnet, J.-C. & Blanc, J.-M. 2000. Rearing density 
effect on the production performance of the edible snail Helix aspersa Miller in indoor 
rearing. Animal Research, 49: 447-456. 

Falkner, G., Bank, R.A. & von Proschwitz, T. 2001. CLECOM-PROJECT. Checklist of the 
non-marine molluscan species-group taxa of the states of northern, Atlantic and central 
Europe (CLECOM I). Heldia, 4: 1-76. 

de Ferussac, A.E.J.P.J.F.d@’?A. 1821-[1822]. Tableaux systématiques des animaux mollusques 
classés en familles naturelles, dans lesquels on a établi la concordance de tous les systémes; 
suivis dun prodrome générale pour tous les mollusques terrestres ou fluviatiles, vivants ou 
fossiles. x\vii, 1, 27, 111 pp. A. Bertrand, Paris; J.B. Sowerby, London. 

Forbes, E. & Hanley, S. 1853. A history of British Mollusca, and their shells. Volume IV. 
Pulmonifera and Cephalopoda. vi, 301, [1] pp., 133 pls. John van Voorst, London. 

Gerber, J. 2000. [Review of] Giusti, F., Manganelli, G. & Schembri, P.J. (1996): The 
non-marine molluscs of the Maltese Islands. Heldia, 3: 42-44. 

Germain, L. 1930. Faune de France 21. Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles. 477 pp. Paris. Paul 
Lechevalier. 

Giusti, F. 1969. A malacological survey of the small Tuscan islands. Malacologia, 9: 85-91. 

Giusti, F. 1977. Biogeographical data on the malacofauna of Sardinia. Malacologia, 16: 
125-129. 

Giusti, F., Manganelli, G. & Schembri, P. 1996. The non-marine molluscs of the Maltese 
Islands. Monografie di Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, 15: 1-607. 

Gmelin, J.F. 1791. Caroli a Linné, systema naturae per regna tria naturae secundum classes, 
ordines,genera, species, cum caracteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Ed. 13, vol. 1, part 
VI. Pp. 3021-3910. G.E. Beer, Lipsia [= Leipzig]. 

Gray, J.E. 1847. A list of the genera of Recent Mollusca, their synonyma and types. 
Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, [1847]: 129-219. 

Guiller, A. & Madec, L. 2010. Historical biogeography of the land snail Cornu aspersum: a new 
scenario inferred from haplotype distribution in the western Mediterranean basin. BMC 
Evolutionary Biology, 10: 18. 

Held, F. 1837. Notizen tiber die Weichtiere Bayerns. Isis, [1837](12): 901-919. 

Herbert, D.G. 2010. The Introduced Terrestrial Mollusca of South Africa. SANBI Biodiversity 
Series 15. vi, 108 pp. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. 

Herbert, D. & Kilburn, R. 2004. Field guide to the land snails and slugs of eastern South Africa. 
[v], 336 pp. Natal Museum, Pietermaritzburg. 

Herrmannsen, A.N. 1846-1847. Indicis generum malacozoorum primordia ... Praetermittuntur 
Cirripedia, Tunicata et Rhizopoda. Vol. I. xxvii, 637 pp. Fischer, Cassel. 

Jess, S. & Marks, R.J. 1995. Population density effects on growth in culture of the edible snail 
Helix aspersa var. maxima. Journal of Molluscan Studies, 61: 313-323. 

Kerney, M.P. & Cameron, R.A.D. 1979. Field guide to the land snails of Britain and north-west 
Europe. 288 pp. Collins, London. 

Kiss, L. & Magnin, F. 2003. The impact of fire on some Mediterranean land snail communities 
and patterns of post-fire recolonization. Journal of Molluscan Studies, 69: 43-53. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 103 


Koene, J.M. & Schulenburg, H. 2005. Shooting darts: co-evolution and counter-adaptation in 
hermaphroditic snails. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 5: 25. 

Ligaszewski, M., Suréwka, K. & Stekla, J. 2009. The shell features of Cornu aspersum 
(synonym Helix aspersa) and Helix pomatia: characteristics and comparison. American 
Malacological Bulletin, 27: 173-181. 

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 

Locard, A. 1880. Etudes sur les variations malacologiques d’aprés la faune vivante et fossile de 
la partie centrale du bassin du Rhone. Annales de la Société d’Aagriculture Histoire 
Naturelle et Arts Utiles de Lyon (5)2: 567-1045. 

Manganelli, G., Salomone, N. & Giusti, F. 2005. A molecular approach to the phylogenetic 
relationships of the western palaearctic Helicoidea (Gastropoda: Stylommatophora). 
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 85: 501-512. 

Melville, RV. & Smith, J.D.D. 1987. Official lists and indexes of names and works in zoology. 
366 pp. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London. 

Montfort, D. de. 1810. Conchyliologie systématique, et classification méthodique des coquilles . . . 
Coquilles univalves, non cloisonnées. Tome second. 676 pp. F. Schoell, Paris. 

Moquin-Tandon, A. 1855. Histoire naturelle des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de France 
contenant des études générales sur leur anatomie et physiologie et la description particuliére 
des genres, des espéces et des variétés. Tome second. 646 pp. J.-B. Bailliére, Paris. 

Miller, O.F. 1774. Vermium terrestrum et fluviatilium, seu animalium infusoriorum, helminthi- 
corum, et testaceorum, non marinorum, succincta historia. Volumen alterum. xxxv, 214, [10] 
pp. Heineck & Faber, Havniae [= Copenhagen] & Lipsiae [= Leipzig]. 

Paniagua, R. & Vazquez, J.J. 1976. A special pattern of the smooth endoplasmic reticulum in 
the kidney of the snail Cryptomphalus aspersa. Journal of Cell Science, 22: 617-622. 
Pfeiffer, L. 1853. Monographia heliceorum viventium. Sistens descriptiones systematicas et 
criticas omnium huius familiae generum et specierum hodie cognitarum. Volumen tertium. 
Supplementum. Sistens enumerationem auctam omnium huius familiae generum et speci- 
erum hodie cognitarum, accedentibus descriptionibus novarum specierum et enumeratione 

fossilium. viii, 711 pp. F.A. Brockhaus, Lipsia [= Leipzig]. 

Pilsbry, H.A. 1888-1889. Continuation of Tryon’s monograph of the Helicidae. Pp. 120-296 
in Tryon, G.W., Jr., Manual of conchology; structural and systematic. With illustrations of 
the species. Second series: Pulmonata. Vol. IV. Helicidae: — Vol. IT. 296 pp. [pp. 1-192, 
1888; pp. 193-296, 1889], 69 pls. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. 

Pilsbry, H.A. 1894. Manual of conchology,; Structural and systematic. With illustrations of the 
species. Second series: Pulmonata. Vol IX. (Helicidae, Vol. 7.) Guide to the Study of 
Helices. xlviii, 366 pp., 71 pls. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. 

Pilsbry, H.A. 1948. Land Mollusca of North America (north of Mexico). Volume II. Part 2. 
xlvii, 521-1113 pp. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. 

Reeve, L.A. 1854. Conchologica iconica: or, illustrations of the shells of molluscous animals. Vol. VII. 
Containing a monograph of the genus Helix. [xx] pp., pls. 1-209, text. Lovell Reeve, London. 

Risso, A. 1826. Histoire naturelle des principales productions de l'Europe méridionale et 
particuliérement de celles des environs de Nice et des Alpes Maritimes. Tome quatriéme. [3], 
vil, 439 pp., [12] pls. F.-G. Levrault, Paris. 

Robinson, D.G. 1999. Alien invasions: the effects of the global economy on non-marine 
gastropod introductions into the United States. Malacologia, 41(2): 413-438. 

Rogers, D.W. & Chase, R. 2002. Determinants of paternity in the garden snail Helix aspersa. 
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 52: 289-295. 

Roth, B. & Sadeghian, P.S. 2003. Checklist of the land snails and slugs of California. Santa 
Barbara Museum of Natural History Contributions in Science, 3: 1-81. 

Stanisic, J., Shea, M., Potter, D. & Griffiths, O. 2010. Australian land snails. Volume 1. A field 
guide to eastern Australian species. xii, 591 pp. Mauritius, Bioculture Press. 

Taylor, J.W. 1906-1914. Monograph of the land & freshwater Mollusca of the British Isles. vii, 
[i], 522 pp., 35 pls. Leeds, Taylor Brothers. 

Tryon, G.W. 1888. Manual of conchology; Structural and systematic. With illustrations of the 
species. Second series: Pulmonata. Vol IV. (Helicidae: — Vol. II.) Guide to the study of 
Helices. 296 pp., 69 pls. The author, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. 


104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


Wade, C.M., Mordan, P.B. & Naggs, F. 2006. Evolutionary relationships among pulmonate 
land snails and slugs (Pulmonata, Stylommatophora). Biological Journal of the Linnean 
Society, 87: 593-610. 

Wade, C.M., Hudelot, C., Davison, A., Naggs, F. & Mordan, P.B. 2007. Molecular phylogeny 
of the helicoid land snails (Pulmonata: Stylommatophora: Helicoidea), with special 
emphasis on the Camaenidae. Journal of Molluscan Studies, 73: 411-415. 

Waldén, H.K. 1976. A nomenclatural list of the land Mollusca of the British Isles. Journal of 
Conchology, 29: 21-25. 

Woodward, B.B. 1917. On the adventures of the genus name Lucena. Proceedings of the 
Malacological Society of London, 12(5): 220. 

Zilch, A. 1959-1960. Handbuch der Paldozoologie. Band 6 Gastropoda. Teil 2 Euthyneura. xii, 
834 pp. [pp. 1400, 1959; pp. 401-834, i-xii, 1960], Gebriider Borntrager, Berlin. 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 2. 


Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 105 


Case 3546 


Praeradiolites Douvillé, 1903 (Bivalvia, RADIOLITIDAE): proposed 
designation of Sphaerulites ponsiana d@ Archiac, 1837 as the type 
species 


Jose Maria Pons and Enric Vicens 


Departament de Geologia, Facultat de Ciéncies, Universitat Autonoma de 
Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain 
(e-mail: josepmaria.pons@uab.cat; enric.vicens@uab.cat) 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 81.1 of the Code, is to 
conserve the usage of the generic name Praeradiolites Douvillé, 1902 by designation 
of Sphaerulites ponsiana d’Archiac, 1837 as the type species. The current type species 
of Praeradiolites, Radiolites fleuriausus d’Orbigny, 1842, has characteristic features of 
Foradiolites Douvillé, 1909 instead of Praeradiolites of current usage, and cannot be 
used as the objective standard of reference for the application of the name 
Praeradiolites. Maintaining the present situation would entail a series of disruptive 
taxonomic changes and threaten stability. We propose the replacement of the type 
species of Praeradiolites, which appears to be a less disruptive solution and may 
better guarantee wide acceptance and stability. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Bivalvia; RADIOLITIDAE; Praeradiolites; Eora- 
diolites; Sphaerulites; fleuriausus; ponsiana; Cretaceous; Tethys. 


1. Praeradiolites and Eoradiolites are two radiolitid genera abundantly reported in 
rudist palaeontological publications (a list of 71 most recent references on both 
genera is held by the Secretariat), their diagnostic features are well established and 
widely accepted, and both include a large number of species (Steuber, 2002). 
However, the current usage of the generic name Praeradiolites is not in accord with 
the characters of its type species. 

2. The generic name Praeradiolites was established by Douvillé (1903, p. 469), with 
Radiolites fleuriausus d’Orbigny, 1842 (misspelled by Douvillé as Radiolites fleuriaui) 
originally designated as its type species. The name Praeradiolites Douvillé, 1903 is on 
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and Radiolites fleuriausus d’Orbigny, 
1842 (spelled as fleuriausi) was placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology by Opinion 856 (BZN 25(2/3): 86-97, September 1968). Radiolites fleuri- 
ausus was named after Louis Benjamin Fleuriau de Bellevue, a naturalist of La 
Rochelle. The spelling fleuriausus is an adjectival epithet based on the family name 
Fleuriau. The spelling fleuriausi (as in Opinion 856) is justified by neither etymology 
nor usage and we propose to correct it to fleuriausus (as already used in Kihn’s 
(1932) catalogue). In Opinion 856 the publication date for Praeradiolites Douvillé is 
given as 1902, although the correct date is 1903, as the date ‘27 Janvier 1903’ was 
printed on p. 385 of vol. 2 of Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France. Neave (1940, 
p. 884) gives the correct date 1903. 


106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


3. Douvillé (1903, pp. 468-469, pl. 15, figs. 1-2, 4, 6-8) clearly described and 
illustrated the characters of R. fleuriausus (which he misspelled as fleuriaui) and other 
related species. In the same paper, on p. 469, using Praeradiolites ponsianus as an 
example, he described the modifications occurring in more recent species. Douvillé 
(1903, p. 470) stated ‘Bien que le genre Praeradiolites comprenne plus particuliérement 
les formes anciennes qui n’ont que trois bourrelets ou plis, nous y réunirons encore ces 
formes plus récentes soit pleuroconques, soit plagioconques et nous lui donnerons les 
caractéeres suivants: Genre Praeradiolites: il comprend toutes les formes de Radiolitinés 
qui présentent une aréte cardinale, des lames externes lisses ou légérement ondulées et 
essentiellement, dans la région postérieure, deux sinus E et S et un pli ventral; le pli 
intermédiaire I entre les deux sinus est plus ou moins développé et enfin un pli dorsal PD, 
peut prendre a l'extrémité de la région plissée une importance comparable a celle du pli 
ventral V.’ (English translation: Although the genus Praeradiolites embraces more 
particularly the ancient forms having only three ‘bourrelets’ or folds, we also add 
those more recent forms, pleuroconch or plagioconch and we shall give the following 
characters: The genus Praeradiolites: comprising all RADIOLITINAE forms presenting a 
ligament ridge, smooth or slightly undulated outer lamellae and essentially, in the 
posterior region, two sinuses E and S and a ventral fold; the intermediate fold I 
between the two sinuses is more or less developed and finally a dorsal fold PD, may 
attain an importance comparable to that of the ventral fold V at the end of the folded 
region). 

4. Toucas (1907, pp. 17-46, pls. 1-8) transferred some of the earlier species of 
Praeradiolites to the genus Agria Matheron, 1878, keeping the others in Praeradio- 
lites. The generic name Agria being preoccupied, Kuhn (1932) proposed Agriopleura 
to replace it. 

5. The generic name Eoradiolites was proposed, in a very short note, by Douvillé 
(1909, p. 77) and E. davidsoni was originally designated as its type species. Douvillé 
(1910, pp. 22-23) provided more details about Praeradiolites and Eoradiolites and 
made comparisons. He also (1910, pp. 20-21) stressed the differences in myophore 
development between species of Agria and Eoradiolites. The genus Eoradiolites was 
proposed for those primitive species formerly attributed to Praeradiolites that 
possessed two radial down-and-outward folds (radial bands at the outer surface) 
besides the anterior fold (also a down-and-outward fold), with E. davidsoni as 
type species, as opposed to the other species with two radial up-and-inward folds 
(radial sinus on the outer surface) limited by three radial down-and-outward folds. 
Hence, with regard to this feature, the two genera Eoradiolites and Praeradiolites 
correspond to the two groups of species, earlier (primitive) and more recent (evolved) 
respectively, formerly recognised by Douvillé (1902, p. 469) within Praeradiolites 
(groups of P. fleuriausus and of P. ponsianus in Douvillé (1910, p. 22)). Never- 
theless, fleuriausus, with the characteristics of Eoradiolites, is the type species of 
Praeradiolites. 

6. Pons et al. (2011) fully described and figured the characteristics of P. fleuriausus 
on specimens from Italy, and Pons et al. (in press) revised the specimens from the 
original locality preserved at the Ecole nationale supérieure des Mines de Paris 
Collection, Université Claude Bernard Lyon I, showing that they all agree with those 
of Eoradiolites. Macé-Bordy (2007) designated a lectotype from the specimens in 
d’Orbigny’s collection. The lectotype and three paralectotypes show characters of 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 107 


Eoradiolites, as described in Pons et al. (2010, 2011, in press): ‘Growth lamellae of 
right valve steeply inwardly inclined, with three main radial down-and-outward folds 
AF, VF and PF. Radial structures VF and PF produce smooth, flat ribs (radial 
bands) on the outer surface; the area between VF and PF simple depression that may 
bear ribs. Outer shell layer structure is non-compact with continuous radial ridges 
producing ribbed commissural lip. Ligament ridge is triangular, base distal. Left 
valve with nearly flat centre and inwards inclined margin’. 

7. Radiolites fleuriausus d’Orbigny, 1842 is the type species of Praeradiolites 
Douvillé, 1903 and should provide the objective standard of reference for the 
application of the name Praeradiolites. Nevertheless, it presents the characteristic 
features of Eoradiolites Douvillé, 1909 instead of those of Praeradiolites as in current 
usage. 

8. A strict application of the Code would result in the following major changes in 
the taxonomy of rudists: (1) the inclusion in Praeradiolites of the species having 
similar characters to P. fleuriausus (all those currently ascribed to Eoradiolites, 51 
species in Steuber’s (2002) catalogue); (2) the exclusion from Praeradiolites of the 
other species (all those currently ascribed to Praeradiolites, 77 species in Steuber’s 
(2002) catalogue); (3) the consideration of Eoradiolites as a junior synonym of 
Praeradiolites; and (4) the proposal of a new generic name for all those species 
currently ascribed to Praeradiolites. All the above would seriously undermine 
stability. The Commission’s action is requested in the view of the forthcoming revised 
edition of the Bivalvia volume of the ‘Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology’, which 
will include a volume on rudists. It is desirable that this nomenclatural problem 
should be resolved before publication of the Treatise. The Treatise is the major 
reference book for invertebrate palaeontology systematics (at generic and supra- 
generic level) used by most palaeontologists worldwide. 

9. Considering the above we propose that the Commission use its plenary power to 
set aside all previous type fixations for the genus Praeradiolites Douvillé, 1903 and 
designate Sphaerulites ponsiana @’Archiac, 1835 as the type species. 

10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the genus 

Praeradiolites Douvillé, 1903 and designate Sphaerulites ponsiana d’Archiac, 
1837 as the type species; 

(2) to emend the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for the 
name Praeradiolites Douvillé, 1903 (gender: masculine), to record that its type 
species is Sphaerulites ponsiana d’Archiac, 1837, and not Radiolites fleuriausus 
d’Orbigny, 1842 as ruled in (1) above and that its correct publication date is 
1903 and not 1902; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name ponsiana 
d’Archiac, 1837, as published in the binomen Sphaerulites ponsiana (specific 
name of the type species of Praeradiolites Douvillé, 1903, as ruled in (1) above); 

(4) to emend the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for the 
name fleuriausus d’Orbigny, 1842, as published in the binomen Radiolites 
fleuriausa to record that it is not the type species of Praeradiolites Douvillé, 
1903, as ruled in (1) above, and that its correct original spelling is fleuriausus 
and not fleuriausi. 


108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


References 


Archiac, E.J.A.d’. 1837. Mémoire sur la formation crétacée du S-O de la France. Mémoires de 
la Société Géologique de France, 2(7): 157-192. 

Douvillé, H. 1903. Classification des Radiolites. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, 
(4)2: 461477. 

Douvillé, H. 1909. Sur le genre Eoradiolites nov. Comptes Rendus des Séances de la Société 
Géologique de France, (4)9: 77. 

Douvillé, H. 1910. Etudes sur les rudistes. Rudistes de Sicile, d’Algérie, d’Egypte, du ee et 
de la Perse. Mémoires de la Société Géologique de France. Paléontologie, 18 (Mémoire no. 
41): 1-84. 

Kuhn, O. 1932. Fossilium Catalogus. I: Animalia. Pars 54: Rudistae, 200 pp. W. Junk, Berlin. 

Macé-Bordy, J. 2007. Révision des rudistes crétacés (Bivalvia) de la Paléontologie francaise 
d’Alcide d’Orbigny. Deuxiéme partie. Annales de Paléontologie, 93: 67-105. 

Neave, S.A. 1940. Nomenclator zoologicus. A list of the names of genera and subgenera in 
zoology from the tenth edition of Linnaeus 1758 to the end of 1935, vol. 3. M-P. Pp. [1-2], 
1-1065. Zoological Society, London. 

Orbigny, A.d’. 1842. Quelques considérations zoologiques et géologiques sur les Rudistes. 
Annales de Sciences Naturelles, (2)17: 173-192. 

Pons, J.M., Vicens, E., Chikhi-Aouimeur, F. & Abdallah, H. 2010. Albian Eoradiolites 
(Bivalvia: Radiolitidae) from Jabal Naimia, Gafsa Region, Tunisia, with revisional studies 
on the Albian forms of the genus. Journal of Paleontology, 84: 321-331. 

Pons, J.M., Vicens, E., Chikhi-Aouimeur, F. & Abdallah, H. (in press). Taxonomical and 
biostratigraphical significance of the North African radiolitid rudist bivalve Praeradiolites 
biskraensis (Coquand, 1880). Palaeontology. 

Pons, J.M., Vicens, E. & Tarlao, A. 2011. Cenomanian radiolitid bivalves from Malchina, 
Karst of Trieste, Italy. Cretaceous Research, doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2011.03.009 (online 
pre-publication). 

Steuber, T. 2002. A palaeontological database of rudist bivalves. Taxonomic Database. 
(http://www.paleotax.de/rudists/index.htm) (Accessed 17 May 2011). 

Toucas, A. 1907-09. Etudes sur la classification et l’évolution des Radiolitidés. Mémoires de la 
Société Géologique de France. Paléontologie, Mémoire n° 36. Premiére partie: Agria et 
Praeradiolites (1907), 14: 1-46, pls. 1-8. Deuxiéme partie: Sphaerulites et Radiolites 
(1908), 16: 47-78, pls. 9-15. Troisi¢éme partie; Sauvagesia et Biradiolites (1909), 17: 
79-132, pls. 16-26. | 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 68: 2 
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 


should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 109 


Case 3547 


Cryptotermes dudleyi Banks, 1918 (Insecta, Isoptera): proposed 
precedence over Calotermes havilandi parasita Wasmann, 1910 
(currently Cryptotermes parasita) 


Kumar Krishna 


Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, 
Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, New York 10024-5192, 
U.S.A. (e-mail: krishn@amnh.org) 


Michael S. Engel 


Division of Entomology, Natural History Museum, and Department of 
Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, 1501 Crestline Drive — Suite 140, 
University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66049-2811, U.S.A.; and Division 
of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, Central 
Park West at 79th Street, New York, New York 10024-5192, U.S.A. 
(e-mail: msengel@ku.edu) 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3 and 81 of the Code, 
is to conserve the usage of the specific name Cryptotermes dudleyi Banks, 1918 for an 
important economic termite pest species introduced throughout much of the world 
by man. The senior name, Calotermes havilandi parasita Wasmann, 1910 (currently 
Cryptotermes parasita), is poorly known, not widely used, and applied only to a 
population of restricted distribution, while the junior name has been universally used 
in an extensive systematic, biological, and pest management literature since 1918 
when it was first proposed. It is accordingly proposed that the specific name dudleyi 
be given precedence over parasita whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Isoptera; KALOTERMITIDAE; Cryptotermes; 
Cryptotermes dudleyi; Cryptotermes parasita; termites; worldwide. 


1. Wasmann (1910, p. 120) described Calotermes havilandi parasita from Mauritius 
and Europa Island, without selecting a holotype. Subsequently, Holmgren (191 1a, 
p. 55) transferred Calotermes havilandi parasita to the subgenus Cryptotermes (today 
treated as a separate genus) and elevated the subspecies to specific rank, as 
Calotermes (Cryptotermes) parasita. 

2. Banks (1918, p. 660) described and illustrated the drywood termite Cryptotermes 
dudleyi from Panama in his faunal account of the Isoptera of British Guiana and 
Panama. 

3. Bacchus (1987, p. 53) selected a lectotype for parasita from Wasmann’s syntypes 
from Mauritius and declared parasita a synonym of Cryptotermes dudleyi. He, 
however, retained dudleyi as the valid name despite parasita having priority. The type 
series of C. havilandi parasita Wasmann included syntypes from Mauritius and 


110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


Europa. It was found to be mixed. The syntypes from Europa Island, which are now 
paralectotypes with no name-bearing status, belong to Cryptotermes havilandi 
SjOstedt, 1900 (Chhotani, 1970, p. 43; Bacchus, 1987, p. 1). A syntype from Mauritius 
was selected by Bacchus (1987, p. 53) as the lectotype of parasita, which that 
author then declared to be a junior synonym of Cryptotermes dudleyi Banks, 
1918, without realising that parasita Wasmann 1910 has priority over dudleyi Banks, 
1918. 

4. Engel & Krishna (2002, p. 90) petitioned to conserve dudleyi relative to another 
senior synonym, Calotermes (Cryptotermes) jacobsoni Holmgren, 1913. The conser- 
vation of dudleyi relative to jacobsoni was upheld by the Commission and both names 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (Opinion 2064, BZN 61(1): 
57-58, March 2004)). These authors overlooked at that time the similar priority of 
parasita over dudleyi. 

5. Cryptotermes dudleyi Banks has a wide distribution and is a significant pest 
species, introduced into all the geographical regions of the world (Oriental, Ethio- 
pian, Palaearctic, Nearctic, Neotropical, Australian and Pacific Oceanic Islands). The 
name dudleyi has been widely used in biological, systematic, and pest control 
literature. Since 1918 it has appeared in more than 100 biological and systematic 
papers and in a voluminous literature on pest control (e.g. Harris, 1961; Gay, 1967; 
Araujo, 1970; Roonwal, 1970; Sen Sarma 1974; Sen Sarma et al., 1975; Gay & 
Watson, 1982; Steward, 1983a, 1983b; Thakur, 1984; Roonwal & Chhotani, 1989; 
Huang et al., 1989, 2000; Watson et al., 1998; Scheffrahn & Kreéek, 1999; Bordereau 
et al., 1999; Constantino, 2002; Fontes & Milano, 2002; Milano & Fontes, 2002). 
Conversely, the name parasita has been associated with only a restricted distribution 
(Comoros, Mauritius and Madagascar) and has been used only nine times in the 
same period, generally in checklists and catalogues (Holmgren, 1911a, 1911b; Hegh, 
1922; Sjostedt, 1926; Snyder, 1949; Van Boven, 1969; Chhotani, 1970; Bacchus, 1987; 
Eggleton & Davies, 2003), not in any revisionary or biological studies. 

6. To replace the name dudleyi, which has been and is now universally used in the 
literature and widely recognised, with the obscure name parasita would, to say the 
least, create confusion and nomenclatural instability, particularly for the vast 
biological control and pest management community. We therefore propose that the 
name C. dudleyi be given precedence over C. parasita, with parasita remaining 
available for any future investigators who may wish to resurrect the epithet. In 
accordance with Article 23.9.3 of the Code this case is referred to the Commission for 
a ruling under Article 81. 

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary power to give the name dudleyi Banks, 1918, as published 
in the binomen Cryptotermes dudleyi, precedence over the name parasita 
Wasmann, 1910, as published in the trinomen Calotermes havilandi parasita, 
whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name parasita 
Wasmann, 1910, as published in the trinomen Calotermes havilandi parasita, 
with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name dudleyi 
Banks, 1918, as published in the binomen Cryptotermes dudleyi, whenever the 
two are considered to be synonyms; 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 L¥I 


(3) to amend the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for the 
name dudleyi Banks, 1918, as published in the binomen Cryptotermes dudleyi, 
to record that it is to be given precedence over the name parasita Wasmann, 
1910, as published in the trinomen Calotermes havilandi parasita, whenever the 
two are considered to be synonyms. 


Acknowledgements 


We are grateful to L. Herman and Y. Roisin for incisive suggestions and comments 
and to V. Krishna for editorial assistance. 


References 


Araujo, R.L. 1970. Termites of the Neotropical region. Pp. 527-576 in Krishna, K. & Weesner, 
F.M. (Eds.), Biology of Termites [Volume 2]. Academic Press, New York. 

Bacchus, S. 1987. A taxonomic and biometric study of the genus Cryptotermes (Isoptera: 
Kalotermitidae). Tropical Pest Bulletin, 7: [iv], 1-91. 

Banks, N. 1918. The termites of Panama and British Guiana. Bulletin of the American Museum 
of Natural History, 38(17): 659-667, pl. 1. 

Bordereau, C., Peppuy, A., Connétable, S. & Robert, A. 1999. Les termites de l’ile de la Réunion 
et leur importance économique. Actes des Colloques Insectes Sociaux, 12: 159-164. 
Chhotani, O.B. 1970. Taxonomy, zoogeography and phylogeny of the genus Cryptotermes 
(Isoptera: Kalotermitidae) from the Oriental region. Memoirs of the Zoological Survey of 

India, 15(1): 1, 1-81. 

Constantino, R. 2002. The pest termites of South America: Taxonomy, distribution and status. 
Journal of Applied Entomology, 126: 355-365. 

Eggleton, P. & Davies, R. 2003. Isoptera, termites. Pp. 654-660 in Goodman, S.M. & Benstead, 
J.P. (Eds.), The Natural History of Madagascar. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. 

Engel, M.S. & Krishna, K. 2002. Case 3181. Cryptotermes dudleyi Banks, 1918 (Insecta, 
Isoptera): Proposed precedence over Calotermes (Cryptotermes) jacobsoni Holmgren, 
1913. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 59(2): 90-92. 

Evans, T.A. 2010. Invasive termites. Pp. 519-562 in Bignell, D.A., Roisin, Y. & Lo, N. (Eds.), 
Biology of Termites: A Modern Synthesis. Springer, Dordrecht. 

Fontes, L.R. & Milano, S. 2002. Termites as an urban problem in South America. Sociobiology, 
40(1): 103-151. 

Gay, F.J. 1967. A world review of introduced species of termites. Commonwealth Scientific and 
Industrial Research Organization Bulletin, 286: 1-88. 

Gay, F.J. & Watson, J.A.L. 1982. The genus Cryptotermes in Australia (Isoptera: Kaloter- 
mitidae). Australian Journal of Zoology, Supplement, 88: 1-64. 

Harris, W.V. 1961. Termites: Their Recognition and Control. xii, 187 pp. Longmans, Green & 
Co., London. 

Holmgren, N. 191la. Termitenstudien. 2. Systematik der Termiten. Die Familien Mastoter- 
mitidae, Protermitidae und Mesotermitidae. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens 
Handlingar, 46(6): 1-86, 6 pls. 

Holmgren, N. 1911b. Bemerkungen tiber einige Termiten-Arten. Zoologischen Anzeiger, 37(26): 
545-553. 

Holmgren, N. 1913. Termitenstudien. 4. Versuch einer systematischen Monographie der 
Termiten der orientalischen Region. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlin- 
gar, 50(2): 1-276, 8 pls. 

Huang, F.-S., Li, G.-X. & Zhu, S.-M. 1989. The Taxonomy and Biology of Chinese Termites — 
Isoptera. 2, 2, 605 pp. Tianze Press. Guangzhou. 

Huang, F., Zhu, S., Ping, X., He, X., Li, G. & Gao, D. 2000. Fauna Sinica [Volume 17], Insecta: 
Isoptera. xxiv, 961 pp. Science Press, Beijing. 

Milano, S. & Fontes, L.R. 2002. Cupim e Cidade: Implicagées Ecologicas e Controle. 141 pp. 
Conquista Artes Graficas, Sao Paulo. 


112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


Roonwal, M.L. 1970. Termites of the Oriental region. Pp. 315-391 in Krishna, K. & Weesner, 
F.M. (Eds.), Biology of Termites [Volume 2]. Academic Press, New York. 

Roonwal, M.L. & Chhotani, O.B. 1989. The Fauna of India and Adjacent Countries. Isoptera 
(Termites). (Introduction and Families Termopsidae, Hodotermitidae, Kalotermitidae, 
Rhinotermitidae, Stylotermitidae and Indotermitidae) [Volume 1]. [8], viii, 672 pp. 
Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta. 

Scheffrahn, R.H. & Kfetek, J. 1999. Termites of the genus Cryptotermes Banks (Isoptera: 
Kalotermitidae) from the West Indies. Insecta Mundi, 13(3-4): 111-171. 

Sen Sarma, P.K. 1974. Ecology and biogeography of the termites of India. Pp. 421-472 in 
Mani, M.S. (Ed.), Ecology and Biogeography in India. W. Junk, The Hague. 

Sen Sarma, P.K., Thakur, M.L., Misra, S.C. & Gupta, B.K. 1975. Studies on Wood Destroying 
Termites of India (Final Technical Report 1968-73) under PL 480 Project A7-FS-58. viii, 
187, [2] pp. Forest Research Institute & Colleges. Dehra Dun. 

Sjéstedt, Y. 1900. Monographie der Termiten Afrikas. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskaps- 
Akademiens Handlingar, 34(4): 1-236. 

Sjéstedt, Y. 1926. Revision der Termiten Afrikas. 3. Monographie. Kungliga Svenska 
Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, Tredje Serien 3(1): 1-419, 16 pls. 

Snyder, T.E. 1949. Catalog of termites (Isoptera) of the world. Smithsonian Miscellaneous 
Collections, 112(3953): 1-490. 

Steward, R.C. 1983a. Microclimate and colony foundation by imago and neotenic reproduc- 
tives of dry-wood termite species (Cryptotermes sp.) (Isoptera: Kalotermitidae). Socio- 
biology, 7(3): 311-331. 

Steward, R.C. 1983b. The effects of humidity, temperature and acclimation on the feeding, 
water balance and reproduction of dry-wood termites (Cryptotermes). Entomologia 
Experimentalis et Applicata, 33: 135-144. 

Thakur, M.L. 1984. Further records of occurrence and incidence of damage by termites of the 
genus Cryptotermes Banks in India (Isoptera: Kalotermitidae). Journal of the Bombay 
Natural History Society, 81(2): 497-500. 

Van Boven, J.K.A. 1969. The termite types of the Wasmann Collection in the Natuurhistorisch 
Museum of Maastricht. Publicatiés van het Natuurhistorisch Genootschap in Limburg, 
19(1-2): 37-61. 

Wasmann, E. 1910. Termiten von Madagaskar, den Comoren und Inseln Ostafrikas. 
Pp. 115-127 in Voeltzkow, A. (Ed.), Reise in Oskafrika in den Jahren 1903-1905: Mit 
Mitteln der Hermann und Elise geb. Heckmann Wentzel-Stiftung Ausgefiihrt. Wissen- 
schaftliche Ergebnisse. Band III. Systematische Arbeiten. Heft I. E. Schweizerbart’sche 
Verlag, Stuttgart. 

Watson, J.A.L., Miller, L.R. & Abbey, H.M. 1998. Isoptera. Pp. 163-250 in Houston, W.W.K. 
& Wells, A. (Eds.), Zoological Catalogue of Australia [Volume 23]: Archaeognatha, 
Zygentoma, Blattodea, Isoptera, Mantodea, Dermaptera, Phasmatodea, Embioptera, 
Zoraptera. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne. 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 68: 2 


Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 113 


Case 3538 


CORYNINAE Benson, 1938 (Insecta, Hymenoptera, CIMBICIDAE): proposed 
emendation of spelling to CORYNIDINAE to remove homonymy with 
CORYNIDAE Johnston, 1836 (Cnidaria, Anthoathecata) 


Stephan M. Blank 


Senckenberg Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, Eberswalder Str. 90, 
15374 Muiincheberg, Germany (e-mail: Stephan. Blank@senckenberg.de) 


Mattias Forshage 


Entomology Department, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Box 50007, 
104 05 Stockholm, Sweden (e-mail: Mattias.Forshage@nrm.se) 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 29 and 55.3.1 of the Code, 
is to remove the homonymy between two family-group names, CORYNINAE of 
Hymenoptera (Insecta) and CoRYNIDAE of Anthoathecata (Cnidaria). It is proposed 
to adopt the Greek genitive form Corynid- of the sawfly genus Corynis Thunberg, 
1789 as the stem of the corresponding family-group name, giving CORYNIDINAE 
Benson, 1938. CORYNIDAE Johnston, 1836, a name for hydrozoans, would remain 
unchanged. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Anthoathecata; Hymenoptera; cIMBICIDAE; 
CORYNIDAE; CORYNIDINAE; Coryne; Corynis; sawflies; hydrozoans; Palaearctic. 


1. Johnston (1836, p. 107) proposed the family-group name CORYNIDAE to 
accommodate a genus of hydrozoans (Cnidaria). The name is based on the extant 
genus Coryne Gaertner in Pallas, 1774 (pp. 40-41) established for C. pusilla Gaertner 
in Pallas, 1774 (pp. 40-41), which is the type species by monotypy. The journal 
volume including the original publication of Johnston bears the imprinted date 1834 
but it was corrected to 1836 by Cornelius (1982, p. 133). Currently, CORYNIDAE is 
applied as the valid name of a family of Hydrozoa (e.g. Bouillon & Boero, 2000; 
Bouillon et al., 2006; Daly et al., 2007; Schuchert, 2001, 2010). 

2. Benson (1938, p. 371) proposed the family-group name CORYNINAE, based on the 
extant genus of sawflies (Insecta, Hymenoptera, ‘Symphyta’) Corynis Thunberg, 1789 
(p. 13 and footnote h), which originally included the species “Tenthredinem luteam, 
obscuram, & hisce similes’. These species correspond with Tenthredo lutea Linnaeus, 
1758 (p. 555), currently classified as Cimbex luteus (Linnaeus, 1758) (see Taeger et al., 
2010, p. 190), and Tenthredo obscura Fabricius, 1775 (p. 319), currently classified as 
Corynis obscura (Fabricius, 1775) (see Taeger et al. 2010, p. 199). Morice & Durrant 
(1915, p. 372) selected Tenthredo obscura Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of 
Corynis, erroneously referring to ‘obscura L[innaeus]’. Currently, CORYNINAE is in use 
for a subfamily of the sawfly family cimBIcIDAE Thomson, 1871 (e.g. Lorenz & Kraus, 
1957; Benson, 1968; Abe & Smith, 1991; Ermolenko, 1972, 2001; Taeger & Blank, 
1998; Taeger et al., 2010). CORYNINAE includes a single genus, Corynis Thunberg, 


114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


1789, which comprises 28 mostly West Palaearctic species (Benson, 1968; Taeger 
et al., 2010). In a forthcoming revision, a number of additional species will be 
described (H.-J. Jacobs et al., pers. comm.). 

3. Thunberg’s (1789, p. 13 and footnote h) brief original description of Corynis does 
not include an explicit etymology. The name is certainly based on the Greek noun 
kopvvy (club), because Thunberg’s short Latin diagnosis ‘Antenne capitate’ refers to 
the clavate shape of the antennae, which is characteristic of Corynis as well as of other 
CIMBICIDAE. The Greek noun was correctly transliterated by Thunberg (1789) for 
Corynis and by Gaertner in Pallas, 1774 (pp. 40-41) for Coryne. The ending -is given 
by Thunberg for Corynis may have two explanations, which are both equally plausi- 
ble: (1) it is a modification to fit into the 3rd Latin declension. In this case the stem is 
Coryn- and it conflicts with CORYNIDAE Johnston, 1836 as stated above; (2) it is a 
Greek suffix -is (genitive -idos) to indicate ‘user of or “bearer of’, as in the Greek noun 
pharmakis (sorcerer), which is derived from the Greek noun pharmakon (potion). In 
this case the stem would be CoRYNID-, giving CORYNIDINAE for the subfamily name in 
CIMBICIDAE, which would not conflict with CORYNIDAE Johnston, 1836. 

4. Gussakovsky (1947, pp. 14, 115, 178, 215) proposed the family-group name AMASINI, 
based on the extant genus of sawflies Amasis Leach, 1817 (pp. 102, 114). In the original 
description of Amasis, both Tenthredo obscura Fabricius, 1775 (p. 319) and Tenthredo 
laeta Fabricius, 1798 (p. 214) were included. Westwood (1839, p. 52) designated 
Tenthredo obscura Fabricius, 1775 as the type species. Amasis Leach, 1817 is a junior 
objective synonym of Corynis Thunberg, 1789 due to identical type species (Morice & 
Durrant, 1915, p. 372). Ermolenko (1972, p. 167) was the first to associate the family- 
group names AMASINI Gussakovskij, 1947 and CORYNINAE Benson, 1938, applying Cory- 
NINAE as the valid name for the subfamily of cIMBICIDAE. Subsequent to Gussakovskij 
(1947), AMASINI has been used as a valid name only once by Cinovskij (1953, pp. 27, 57). 

5. Since the revision of Corynis by Benson (1968), most authors have applied 
Corynis as the valid name for a particular sawfly genus associated with CIMBICIDAE. 
Amasis Leach, 1817 is the only available, junior synonym of Corynis Thunberg, 1789 
(Blank et al., 2009, Taeger et al., 2010). Two lists which demonstrate the frequent use 
after 1968 of Corynis (a selection of 50 references) against the rare use of Amasis (a 
total of only seven publications found) have been forwarded to the Commission 
Secretariat. 

6. Both the family-group names CORYNIDAE Johnston, 1836 (Cnidaria) and 
CORYNINAE Benson, 1938 (Insecta) are correctly formed and are in general use. 
Raising AMASINI Gussakovskij, 1947 to subfamily rank and replacing CORYNINAE 
Benson, 1938 would cause considerable confusion, because since Benson’s (1968) 
revision, Corynis Thunberg, 1789 has almost consistently been used as the valid name 
of the only included genus, whereas Amasis Leach, 1817 has been used as valid only 
rarely and possibly only inadvertently (e.g. in the original description of Amasis 
valkanovi Vasilev, 1969, pp. 695-696, a junior subjective synonym of Corynis obscura 
(Fabricius, 1775) according to Taeger et al. (2010, p. 199)). To remove the 
homonymy, it is therefore proposed, in accordance with Article 29.1 of the Code, to 
presume that the -is in Corynis is the Greek suffix of which the genitive would be -idos 
as explained in para. 4 above, so that the hymenopteran family-group name based on 
it would become CoRYNIDINAE. As required by Article 55.3.1 of the Code this case is 
referred to the Commission. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 115 


7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: 
(1) to use its plenary power to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 the stem of 
the generic name Corynis Thunberg, 1789 is Corynid-; 
(2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: 
(a) Corynis Thunberg, 1789 (gender: feminine), type species Tenthredo obscura 
Fabricius, 1775 by subsequent designation by Morice & Durrant (1915); 
(b) Coryne Gaertner in Pallas, 1774 (gender: feminine), type species by 
monotypy Coryne pusilla Gaertner in Pallas, 1774; 
(3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: 
(a) obscura Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Tenthredo obscura 
(specific name of the type species of Corynis Thunberg, 1789); 
(b) pusilla Gaertner in Pallas, 1774, as published in the binomen Coryne pusilla 
(specific name of the type species of Coryne Gaertner in Pallas, 1774); 
(4) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in 
Zoology: 
(a) CORYNIDINAE Benson, 1938, type genus Corynis Thunberg, 1789 (spelling 
emended by the ruling in (1) above) (Insecta, Hymenoptera); 
(b) CORYNIDAE Johnston, 1836, type genus Coryne Gaertner in Pallas, 1774 
(Cnidaria, Anthoathecata); 
(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in 
Zoology the name CORYNINAE Benson, 1938 (spelling emended to CORYNIDINAE 
in (1) above). } 


Acknowledgements 


We are grateful to H.-J. Jacobs (Ranzin), P. Schuchert (Geneva), A. Shinohara 
(Tokyo), D.R. Smith (Washington, DC), A. Taeger and A.D. Liston (Miincheberg) 
and M. Wei (Changsha) for critically reading earlier versions of the manuscript and 
supporting this application. 


References 


Abe, M. & Smith, D.R. 1991. The Genus-group Names of Symphyta (Hymenoptera) and Their 
Type Species. Esakia, 31: 1-115. 

Benson, R.B. 1938. On the Classification of Sawflies (Hymenoptera Symphyta). Transactions of 
the Royal Entomological Society of London, 87(15): 353-384. 

Benson, R.B. 1968. Hymenoptera from Turkey, Symphyta. Bulletin of the British Museum 
(Natural History) Entomology series, 22(4): 111-207. 

Blank, S.M., Taeger, A., Liston, A.D., Smith, D.R., Rasnitsyn, A.P., Shinohara, A., Heidemaa, 
M. & Viitasaari, M. 2009. Studies toward a World Catalog of Symphyta (Hymenoptera). 
Zootaxa, 2254: 1-96. 

Bouillon, J. & Boero, F. 2000. Synopsis of the families and genera of the Hydromedusae of the 
world, with a list of the worldwide species. Thalassia Salentina, 24: 47-296. 

Bouillon, J., Gravili, C., Pagés, F., Gili, J.-M. & Boero, F. 2006. An introduction to Hydrozoa. 
Mémoires du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 194: 1-591. 

Cinovskij, Ja.P. 1953. Nasekomye Latvijskoj SSR. Rogohvosty i pilil’shchiki. 209 pp. 
Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk Latvijskoj SSR, Riga. 

Cornelius, P.F.S. 1982. Hydroids and medusae of the family Campanulariidae recorded from 
the eastern North Atlantic, with a world synopsis of genera. Bulletin of the British Museum 
(Natural History) Zoology series, 42(2): 37-148. 

Daly, M., Brugler, M.R., Cartwright, P., Collin, A.G., Dawson, M.N., Fautin, D.G., France, 
S.C., McFadden, C.S., Opresko, D.M., Rodriguez, E., Romano, S.L. & Stake, J.L. 2007. 


116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


The phylum Cnidaria: A review of phylogenetic patterns and diversity 300 years after 
Linnaeus. Zootaxa, 1668: 127-182. 

Ermolenko, V.M. 1972. Rohoxvosty ta pyl’shhyky. Vypusk 2. Tentredopodibni pyl’shhyky. 
Cymbicydy. Blastykotomidy. Jn Fauna Ukrayiny, 10(2): 1-203, Kyyiv. 

Ermolenko, V.M. 2001. Novyi dlya nauki vid pilil’shchikov roda Corynis (Hymenoptera, 
Cimbicidae) iz Arment. [A New Sawfly Species of the Genus Corynis (Hymenoptera, 
Cimbicidae) from Armenia]. Vestnik zoologii, 35(4): 73-76. 

Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema entomologiae, sistens insectorum classes, ordines, genera, species, 
adiectis synonymis, locis, descriptionibus, observationibus. xxxii, 832 pp. Officina Libraria 
Kortii, Flensburgi et Lipsiae. 

Fabricius, J.C. 1798. Supplementum entomologiae systematicae. 572 pp. Hafniae. 

Gussakovskij, V.V. 1947: Insectes Hyménopteres, Chalastogastra (partie 2), vol. 2(2). Pp. 
1-235 in Pavlovsky, E.N. & Stackelberg, A.A. (Eds.), Faune de TURSS. Academie des 
Sciences de l’URSS, Moscow, Leningrad. 

Johnston, [G.] 1836. A Catalogue of the Zoophytes of Berwickshire. History of the Berwickshire 
Naturalists’ Club, 1[1834]: 107-108. 

Leach, W.E. 1817. The Zoological Miscellany. Being Descriptions of New or Interesting 
Animals, vol. 3. 151 pp. R. & A. Taylor, Shoe-Lane, London. 

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 

Lorenz, H. & Kraus, M. 1957. Die Larvalsystematik der Blattwespen (Tenthredinoidea und 
Megalodontoidea). Abhandlungen zur Larvalsystematik der Insekten, 1: 1-389. 

Morice, F.D. & Durrant, J.H. 1915. The authorship and first publication of the Jurinean 
Genera of Hymenoptera: Being a reprint of a long-lost work by Panzer, with a translation 
into English, an Introduction, and Bibliographical and Critical notes. Transactions of the 
Entomological Society of London, {1914|(3-4): 339-436. 

Pallas, P.S. 1774. Spicilegia zoologica. Quibus novae imprimis et obscurae animalium species 
iconibus, descriptionibus atque commentariis illustrantur. Fasciculus x: 1-[42], index 
[1-10]. In Pallas, P.S. 1767-1780: Spicilegia zoologica. Tomus I. Continens quadrupedium, 
avium, amphibiorum, piscium, insectorum, molluscorum aliorumque marinorum. Gottl. 
August. Lange, Berolini. 

Schuchert, P. 2001. Survey of the family Corynidae (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa). Revue Suisse de 
Zoologie, 108(4): 739-878. 

Schuchert, P. 2010. Corynidae in Schuchert, P. World Hydrozoa database. Accessed at 
http://www.marinespecies.org/hydrozoa/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1599 Accessed on 
19 May 2011. 7 

Taeger, A. & Blank, S.M. 1998. Systematische Ubersicht. Pp. 337-338 in Taeger, A. & Blank, 
S.M. (Eds.), Pflanzenwespen Deutschlands (Hymenoptera, Symphyta). Kommentierte 
Bestandsaufnahme. Goecke & Evers, Keltern. 

Taeger, A., Blank, S.M. & Liston, A.D. 2010. World Catalog of Symphyta (Hymenoptera). 
Zootaxa, 2580: 1—1064. 

Thunberg, C.P. 1789. Periculum entomologicum, quo characteres generum Insectorum proponit 
etc. Dissert. Resp. S. Foerner. Edman, Upsaliae, 16 pp. 

Vasilev, I.B. 1969. Neue Blattwespenart Amasis Leach. (Cimbicidae, Hymenoptera) aus 
Bulgarien. Doklady Bolgarskoi Akademii Nauk, 22(6): 695-696. 

Westwood, J.O. 1839. Synopsis of the Genera of British Insects. Pp. 49-80 in Westwood, J.O. 
1838-1840: An introduction to the modern classification of insects; founded on the natural 
habits and corresponding organisation of the different families. Longman, Orme, Brown, 
Green & Longmans, London. 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 270 


Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 117 


Case 3544 


Apis armbrusteri Zeuner, 1931 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed 
conservation by designation of a neotype 


Michael S. Engel 


Division of Entomology, Natural History Museum, and Department of 
Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, 1501 Crestline Drive — Suite 140, 
University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66049-2811, U.S.A. 

(e-mail: msengel@ku.edu) 


Ulrich Kotthoff 


Geologisch-Paldontologisches Institut, Universitat Hamburg, Bundesstrafse 
55, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany (e-mail: fgiv005@uni-hamburg.de) 


Torsten Wappler 


Steinmann-Institut ftir Geologie, Mineralogie und Paldontologie, Universitat 
Bonn, Nufallee 8, D-53115 Bonn, Germany (e-mail: twappler@uni-bonn.de) 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 75.5 of the Code, is to 
conserve the name Apis armbrusteri Zeuner, 1931 for a species of fossil honey bee 
occurring in the Miocene fauna of southwestern Germany. The holotype is the 
hollow impression of a bee from the Early Miocene B6éttingen Marmor and, aside 
from attributing the taxon to the tribe APINI, no details regarding its specific identity 
can be gleaned from this specimen. Nonetheless, this name has been universally 
applied to the Early Miocene honey bees from B6éttingen Marmor and the related 
contemporaneous site from the same crater series, Randeck Maar, since Zeuner & 
Manning (1976). Although A. armbrusteri is recognised as a nomen dubium, to 
resurrect the unused specific epithet Apis scheuthlei (Armbruster, 1938) for these 
bees would be counter to current usage and would destabilise a voluminous 
literature on honey bee evolution and ecology. It would also threaten the subgeneric 
name Cascapis Engel, 1999 as A. armbrusteri sensu Zeuner & Manning (1976), i.e. 
based on the Randeck Maar material, is its type species by original designation. 
Accordingly, it is proposed that the unidentifiable holotype be set aside and one of 
the more exquisitely preserved and easily diagnosable specimens from this same 
fauna be designated as neotype, thereby stabilising the honey bee taxonomy and 
bringing the application of the name A. armbrusteri in line with universal current 
usage. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; APIDAE; Apis; Apis armbrusteri; 
Cascapis; Hauffapis; apiculture; fossil honey bees; Miocene. 


1. Zeuner (1931, p. 292) proposed the name Apis armbrusteri for a new fossil honey 
bee species based on the hollow remains of several workers on a thermal limestone 


118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


slab from the Early Miocene of Béttingen Marmor (Swabian Alb, Wiirttemberg, 
southwestern Germany). The casts do not preserve any species-specific details of 
honey bees. Zeuner (p. 297) designated the third cast on the block as the holotype. 

2. Armbruster (1938, p. 37) described a new genus, Hauffapis with three included 
species, Hauffapis scheuthlei, H. scheeri and H. scharmanni (pp. 43-44), for a group 
of exceptionally well preserved early honey bees from the Early Miocene of Randeck 
Maar (Swabian Alb, Wirttemberg, southwestern Germany), a deposit that is part of 
the same crater series as that of B6ttingen Marmor but of considerably different 
taphonomy and preservation. The genus-group name Hauffapis is unavailable as no 
type species was originally (or has subsequently been) selected (Article 13.3 of the 
Code; Michener, 1990, 1997; Engel, 1999). 

3. Zeuner & Manning (1976, pp. 244-248), in a monographic study of the fossil 
bees of the world published posthumously from accumulated notes, considered Apis 
armbrusteri and the three “Hauffapis’ species to be conspecific and united them all 
under the former name, retaining Armbruster’s epithets as subspecific entities for 
minor variations in wing venation. 

4. Engel (1999, p. 187), in a taxonomic overview of living and fossil honey bees, 
proposed the subgeneric name Cascapis, to use in place of Hauffapis Armbruster, 
1938, describing the subgenus on the basis of the well preserved Randeck Maar honey 
bees, then all considered as Apis armbrusteri Zeuner, 1931, following Zeuner & 
Manning (1976). Apis armbrusteri Zeuner, 1931 is the type species of Cascapis by 
original designation. 

5. Since Zeuner & Manning’s (1976) monograph, the name Apis armbrusteri 
Zeuner, 1931 has been universally employed as the name for the Miocene species of 
honey bee from the Béttingen Marmor-Randeck Maar fauna. Indeed, it had already 
been the standard usage for many years prior to their monograph. The name has 
appeared in countless works on honey bee systematics and evolution, and in the 
voluminous apicultural literature (e.g. Statz, 1934, 1944; Roussy, 1937; Kelner- 
Pillault, 1969a, 1969b; Burnham, 1978; Culliney, 1983; Seeley, 1985; Ruttner 1988, 
1992; Ruttner et al., 1986; Zhang, 1990; Michener, 1990, 1997, 2007; Hong & Miao, 
1992; Petrov, 1992; Lutz, 1993; Engel, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2006; Engel 
et al., 2009; Kotthoff, 2005; Oldroyd & Wongsiri, 2006; Tan et al., 2008). 

6. In addition, the genus-group name Cascapis Engel, 1999 would also be 
threatened as A. armbrusteri Zeuner, 1931 is its type species by original designation, 
although the diagnosis is based on the more completely preserved Randeck Maar 
material under the synonymic names, H. scheuthlei, H. scheeri and H. scharmanni. 

7. The incompleteness of the holotype leaves the identity of Apis armbrusteri 
entirely ambiguous, even at the generic level. Reverting to one of Armbruster’s (1938) 
long unused epithets would be counter to nomenclatural stability and universal 
usage. Presently involved in a review of the Miocene diversity of honey bees, we 
propose the stabilisation of Apis armbrusteri Zeuner by replacement of the uniden- 
tifiable name-bearing type by a neotype in accordance with Article 75.5. We therefore 
propose that an exceptionally well preserved specimen from Randeck Maar 
(Staatliches Museum fiir Naturkunde, SMNS 64675, Fig. 1) should be designated as 
neotype. 

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 119 


Fig. 1. Proposed neotype of Apis armbrusteri Zeuner, 1931 (Staatliches Museum fiir Naturkunde, SMNS 
64675). Scale bar = 2 mm. 


(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal 
species Apis armbrusteri Zeuner, 1931 and to designate as neotype a specimen 
from the same geological horizon at Randeck Maar (SMNS 64675 in the 
Staatliches Museum fur Naturkunde, Stuttgart); 

2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Cascapis 
Engel, 1999 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Apis 
armbrusteri Zeuner, 1931; 

3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name armbrusteri 
Zeuner, 1931, as published in the binomen Apis armbrusteri and as defined by 
the neotype designated in (1) above (specific name of the type species of 


Cascapis Engel, 1999). 


Acknowledgements 


We are grateful for constructive comments provided by C.D. Michener (University of 
Kansas). This is a contribution of the Division of Entomology, University of Kansas 
Natural History Museum. 


References 


Armbruster, L. 1938. Versteinerte Honigbienen aus dem obermiocanen Randecker Maar. 
Archiv ftir Bienenkunde, 19: 1-48. 


120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


Burnham, L. 1978. Survey of social insects in the fossil record. Psyche, 85: 85-133. 

Culliney, T.W. 1983. Origin and evolutionary history of the honeybees Apis. Bee World, 64: 
29-38. 

Engel, M.S. 1998. Fossil honey bees and evolution in the genus Apis (Hymenoptera: Apidae). 
Apidologie, 29: 265-281. 

Engel, M.S. 1999. The taxonomy of Recent and fossil honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae; 
Apis). Journal of Hymenoptera Research, 8: 165-196. 

Engel, M.S. 2000. Fossils and phylogeny: A paleontological perspective on social bee 
evolution. Pp. 217-224 in Bitondi, M.M.G. & Hartfelder, K. (Eds.), Anais do IV Encontro 
sobre Abelhas. Universidade de Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto. 

Engel, M.S. 2001. The honey bees of Thailand (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Natural History 
Bulletin of the Siam Society, 49: 113-116. 

Engel, M.S. 2002. The honey bees of India, Hymenoptera: Apidae. Journal of the Bombay 
Natural History Society, 99: 3-7. 

Engel, M.S. 2006. A giant honey bee from the middle Miocene of Japan (Hymenoptera: 
Apidae). American Museum Novitates, 3504: 1-12. 

Engel, M.S., Hinojosa-Diaz, I.A. & Rasnitsyn, A.P. 2009. A honey bee from the Miocene of 
Nevada and the biogeography of Apis (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Apini). Proceedings of the 
California Academy of Sciences, Series 4, 60: 23-38. 

Hong, Y.-C. & Miao, S.-J. 1992. Fossil bee [sic] and its origin with discussion on the origin of 
the angiosperm. Memoirs of the Beijing Natural History Museum, 51: 1-19. [In Chinese, 
with English summary] 

Kelner-Pillault, S. 1969a. Abeilles fossiles ancestres des apides sociaux. Proceedings of the VI 
Congress of the IUSSI [International Union for the Study of Social Insects], Bern, 1969: 
85-93. 

Kelner-Pillault, S. 1969b. Les abeilles fossiles. Memoire della Societa Entomologica Italiana, 48: 
519-534. 

Kotthoff, U. 2005. Uber einige Hymenoptera (Insecta) aus dem Unter-Miozin des Randecker 
Maars (Schwabische Alb, Sudwestdeutschland). Stuttgarter Beitrdge zur Naturkunde, 
Serie B, Geologie und Paldontologie, 355: 1—25. 

Lutz, H. 1993. Eckfeldapis electrapoides nov. gen. n. sp., eine ““Honigbiene’” aus dem 
Mittel-Eozan des “Eckfelder Maares” be1 Manderscheid/Eifel, Deutschland (Hymenop- 
tera: Apidae, Apinae). Mainzer Naturwissenschaftliches Archiv, 31: 177-199. 

Michener, C.D. 1990. Classification of the Apidae (Hymenoptera). University of Kansas 
Science Bulletin, 54: 75-164. 

Michener, C.D. 1997. Genus-group names of bees and supplemental family-group names. 
Scientific Papers, Natural History Museum, University of Kansas, 1: 1-81. 

Michener, C.D. 2007. The Bees of the World [2nd Edition]. xvi, [i], 953 pp. Johns Hopkins 
University Press, Baltimore. 

Oldroyd, B.P. & Wongsiri, S. 2006. Asian honey bees: Biology, conservation, and human 
interactions. xv, [i], 340 pp. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 

Petrov, P. 1992. Distribution and phylogenesis of the bee genus Apis (Hymenoptera, Apidae). 
Uspechi Sovremennoi Biologii, Moscow, 112: 359-372. 

Roussy, L. 1937. Contributions a l’étude de l’abeille tertiaire, de ses parasites et de ses ennemis. 
La Gazette Apicole, Montfavet, 388: 49-72. 

Ruttner, F. 1988. Biogeography and taxonomy of honeybees. xii, 284 pp. Springer Verlag, Berlin. 

Ruttner, F. 1992. Naturgeschichte der Honigbienen. 357 pp. Ehrenwirth, Munich. 

Ruttner, F., Wilson, E.C., Snelling, R., Vorwohl, G. & Kauhausen, D. 1986. Die Evolution des 
Fliigelgedders der Honigbienen. Apidologie, 17: 348-350. 

Seeley, T.D. 1985. Honeybee ecology: A study of adaptation in social life. x, 201 pp. Princeton 
University Press, Princeton. 

Statz, G. 1934. Neue Beobachtungen uber fossile Bienen aus dem Tertiar von Rott am 
Siebengebirge. Archiv fiir Bienenkunde, 15: 1-10. 

Statz, G. 1944. Honigbienen aus deutschen Braunkohlenwaldern. Die Umschau, 48: 63-65. 

Tan, K., Fuchs, S. & Engel, M.S. 2008. An adventitious distal abscissa in the forewing of honey 
bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Apidologie, 39: 674-682. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 121 


Zeuner, F.E. 1931. Die Insektenfauna des Bottinger Marmors. Fortschritte der Geologie und 
Palaeontologie, 9: 247-406. 

Zeuner, F.E. & Manning, F.J. 1976. A monograph on fossil bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). 
Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Geology, 27: 149-268. 

Zhang, J.-F. 1990. New fossil species of Apoidea (Insecta: Hymenoptera). Acta Zootaxo- 
nomica Sinica, 15: 83-91. 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 68: 1 


Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


Lae Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


Case 3554 


Anaphes Haliday, 1833 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed designation 
of A. fuscipennis Haliday, 1833 as the type species 


John T. Huber 


Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, K.W. Neatby Building, 
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0C6 (e-mail: john.huber@agr.gc.ca) 


John S. Noyes 


Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, London, 
SW7 SBD, U.K. 


Andrew Polaszek 


Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, London, 
SW7 SBD, U.K. 


Serguei Triapitsyn 


Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, CA, 92521, 
U.S.A. 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 80.9 and 81.1 of the Code, 
is to designate Anaphes fuscipennis Haliday, 1833 (family MYMARIDAE) as the type 
species of Anaphes Haliday, 1833. The nominal species A. punctum Shaw, 1798 is 
currently the type species by subsequent designation and is placed on the Official List 
of Specific Names in Zoology, but no type specimen of A. punctum existed until 
Huber (2011) showed conclusively that punctum belongs to the genus Camptoptera 
Foerster, 1856 and designated a neotype. It is clearly unacceptable that the type 
species of a genus does not belong to that genus so a request to the Commission 
to change the type species to the only other originally included species of Anaphes, 
A. fuscipennis, is presented, to maintain the current usage. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Hymenoptera; MYMARIDAE; Anaphes; 
Anaphes fuscipennis; Anaphes punctum; biological control. 


1. The genus Anaphes Haliday, 1833 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) currently includes 
about 230 nominal species of MYMARIDAE, several of which are used for biological 
control of other insects. As a result there is considerable basic and applied literature 
on the genus, much of it listed in Huber (1992, 2006). 

2. Haliday (1833, p. 269) first defined Anaphes in a key but without included 
species. In a second part of the same paper, Haliday (1833, p. 346) established the 
generic name Anaphes and included two species: Anaphes fuscipennis Haliday, 1833 
and A. punctum (Shaw, 1798), transferred (implicitly) from Ichneumon. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 123 


3. Westwood (1840, p. 78) listed A. punctum as a ‘typical’ (as explained on p. 1, 
footnote) species of Anaphes. Undoubtedly, Westwood was influenced by Haliday’s 
referral of A. punctum to Anaphes, but he chose punctum instead of fuscipennis as 
‘typical’ probably because it was described earlier than fuscipennis, not because it 
represented an ordinary looking species of the genus. Westwood’s choice was 
accepted by many subsequent workers as a type species designation. The original 
material of punctum was apparently not seen by either Haliday or Westwood 
(Graham, 1982, p. 205) so its placement in Anaphes must have been based on the 
short, inadequate original description and, in particular, on Shaw’s illustration. No 
other worker had seen Shaw’s specimen either, except possibly A.H. Haworth 
(1767-1833), a contemporary of Shaw. Graham (1982, p. 206) mentioned having 
found a specimen labelled as punctum by Haworth and stated that it belonged to the 
genus Camptoptera. That specimen is lost (Huber, 2011). 

4. Ashmead (1904, p. 363) selected A. fuscipennis Haliday as the type of Anaphes — 
this is the first unambiguous citation of a type species for Anaphes. If Ashmead was 
aware of Westwood’s choice of punctum as ‘typical’ of Anaphes he ignored it, 
justifiably so because neither Westwood nor Haliday provided any reason for 
assigning punctum to Anaphes. 

5. Gahan & Fagan (1923, p. 12) noted both type species designations for Anaphes 
but did not select one in preference to the other. 

6. Debauche (1948, p. 155) treated A. fuscipennis as the type species of Anaphes, 
with a footnote explaining why he chose this species, and then (Debauche, 1949, 
p. 6) argued forcefully for a change of type species but did not submit a petition to 
the Commission. 

7. The choice of type species of Anaphes seemed to have been resolved when 
punctum was formally placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as the 
type species of Anaphes (Opinion 729, BZN 22(2): 82-83, May 1965), based on a 
petition by Doutt & Annecke (1963) that incorrectly stated (p. 134, 2c) that punctum 
was the type species of Anaphes by original designation. In fact, punctum was not 
cited as the type (or a typical) species until later (Westwood, 1840). Westwood’s 
referral to punctum being typical was almost certainly meant to be adjectival, 1.e. a 
good representative of the genus, rather than nomenclatural, i.e. fixing a type species, 
a concept that was probably not thought of in 1840. 

8. Hellén (1974, p. 23) continued to treat A. fuscipennis as type species and Huber 
(1992, p. 26) supported previous workers to have the type species of Anaphes changed 
to A. fuscipennis. 

9. Although Graham (1982, p. 205) argued that punctum was a species of Anaphes 
he nevertheless intended to petition the Commission for a change of type species to 
A. fuscipennis because punctum could not be identified and no type material could be 
found. In his words (p. 206) ‘it is unsatisfactory to have as type-species of the genus 
a species that cannot be recognized’. Graham died in 1995 and never submitted a 
petition. 

10. Huber (2011, pp. 50-55) presented conclusive evidence that punctum is a species 
of Camptoptera Foerster, 1856 not a species of Anaphes. He designated (p. 56) and 
illustrated (p. 52) a neotype for [chneumon punctum, and transferred that species to 
Camptoptera, thus leaving only one originally included species, A. fuscipennis, in 
Anaphes. The type locality of the neotype is England, Hampshire, Romsey, Awbridge 


124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


(collected in September 1981 by C. Vardy). The neotype is on a card mount and is 
deposited in the Natural History Museum, London. 

11. Anaphes is one of the most cited genera of MYMARIDAE because of the important 
use of some of its member species in biological control of weevils (CURCULIONIDAE) 
and leaf beetles (CHRYSOMELIDAE). Though most nominal species of Anaphes are 
difficult to recognise, even with recourse to type specimens, the proposed type species, 
A. fuscipennis, is one of the few that is readily identifiable. Graham (1982) designated 
a lectotype for it. 

12. Westwood’s type species designation of A. punctum for Anaphes, as confirmed 
by ICZN Opinion 729, has not been generally accepted by entomologists. Strict 
adherence to this designation would have important ramifications. Anaphes would 
become the senior synonym of Camptoptera and the over 80 nominal species of 
Camptoptera would have to be transferred to Anaphes, as new combinations. 
Camptoptera species are known to be egg parasitoids mainly of beetles, e.g. 
SCOLYTIDAE (Huber & Lin 2000). While there is almost no applied literature on species 
of Camptoptera the genus is the largest in a group of genera distantly related to 
Anaphes in the family group classification of MYMARIDAE proposed by Anneke and 
Doutt (1960). Under their classification, Camptoptera is in the tribe OOCTONINI, 
subfamily ALAPTINAE, whereas Anaphes is in the tribe ANAPHINI, subfamily 
MYMARINAE. If the latter suddenly included Camptoptera species, renamed Anaphes if 
Opinion 729 is not overturned, this would cause considerable confusion for 
taxonomists. Concurrently, all the species currently included in Anaphes would have 
to be transferred to the next available, reliable synonym, i.e. Patasson Walker, 1846. 
Patasson was used as a subgenus of Anaphes from 1948 until the early 1990s (Huber 
1992) and prior to that as a genus that was well known to biological control workers. 
It represents a distinct subgroup of species within Anaphes, treated informally for the 
past 20 years as the crassicornis group of species. If Patasson were now to be used for 
all species of Anaphes it would be very confusing for biological control workers who 
have successfully used certain species, either as Patasson or as Anaphes (Patasson), 
for biological control. Panthus Walker, 1846, discussed briefly by Kryger (1950, p. 81) 
and in detail by Graham (1982, p. 203), would not be suitable; the name has not been 
used by taxonomists for over 60 years. Considering the importance of some species 
of Anaphes in biological control, not only would nomenclatural stability be disrupted 
but the use of the new combinations in the applied literature would be disruptive to 
biological control workers. 

13. To resolve the problem of having a type species that belongs to a different genus 
from Anaphes it is recommended that the type species of Anaphes [gender masculine, 
not neuter, as explained in Huber (1992, p. 33; 2006, p. 168)] be changed to A. 
fuscipennis Haliday, 1833, following the lead of Ashmead (1904). Use of the 
Commission’s plenary power under Article 81.1 to effect this change would pro- 
mote nomenclatural stability and universality in the names discussed above (and, 
importantly, their taxonomic concepts as well). 

14. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary power to set aside its previous designation (in Opinion 729) 

of type species for the nominal genus Anaphes Haliday, 1833 and to designate 
Anaphes fuscipennis Haliday, 1833 as the type species of the genus; 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 125 


(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name fuscipennis 
Haliday, 1833, as published in the binomen Anaphes fuscipennis (specific name 
of the type species of Anaphes Haliday, 1833 as designated in (1) above); 

(3) to amend the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for the 
name Anaphes Haliday, 1833, to record that its gender is masculine and not 
feminine, and its type species is Anaphes fuscipennis Haliday, 1833, and not 
Ichneumon punctum Shaw, 1798 as designated in (1) above; 

(4) to amend the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for the 
name punctum Shaw, 1798, as published in the binomen Jchneumon punctum, to 
record that it is not the name of the type species of Anaphes Haliday, 1833. 


References 


Annecke, D.P. & Doutt, R.L. 1961. The genera of the Mymaridae. Hymenoptera: Chalci- 
doidea. Entomology Memoirs. Department of Agricultural Technical Services, Republic of 
South Africa, 5: 1-71. 

Ashmead, W.H. 1904. Classification of the chalcid flies of the superfamily Chalcidoidea, with 
descriptions of new species in the Carnegie Museum, collected in South America by 
Herbert H.H. Smith. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum, 1(4): 225-555. 

Debauche, H.R. 1948. Etude sur les Mymarommidae et les Mymaridae de la Belgique 
(Hymenoptera Chalcidoidea). Mémoires du Musée Royal d'Histoire Naturelle de Belgique, 
108: 1-248, pls. 1-24. 

Debauche, H.R. 1949. Mymaridae (Hymenoptera Chalcidoidea). Exploration du Parc National 
Albert, Mission G.F. de Witte (1933-35), 49: 1105, pls. 1-13. 

Doutt, R.L. & Annecke, D.P. 1963. Mymar Curtis, 1829 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed 
designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 479. Bulletin of 
Zoological Nomenclature, 20: 134-136. 

Haliday, A.H. 1833. Essay on the classification of the parasitic Hymenoptera of Britain, which 
correspond with the Ichneumones minuti of Linnaeus. Entomologist Magazine, 1: 
259-276, 333-350. 

Gahan, A.B. & Fagan, M.M. 1923. The type species of the genera of Chalcidoidea or 
chalcid-flies. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 124: 1-173. 

Graham, M.W.R. de V. 1982. The Haliday collection of Mymaridae (Insecta, Hymenoptera, 
Chalcidoidea) with taxonomic notes on some material in other collections. Proceedings of 
the Royal Irish Academy B, 82: 189-243. 

Hellén, W. 1974. Die Mymariden Finnlands (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Fauna Fennica, 25: 
1-31. 

Huber, J.T. 1992. The subgenera, species groups, and synonyms of Anaphes (Hymenoptera: 
Mymaridae) with a review of the described Nearctic species of the fuscipennis group of 
Anaphes s.s. and the described species of Anaphes (Yungaburra). Proceedings of the 
Entomological Society of Ontario, 123: 23-110. 

Huber, J.T. 2005. The gender and derivation of genus-group names in Mymaridae and 
Mymarommatidae. Acta Societatis Zoologicae Bohemicae, 69: 167-183. 

Huber, J.T. 2006 [2004]. Review of the described Nearctic species of the crassicornis group of 
Anaphes s.s. (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario, 
135: 3-8. 

Huber, J.T. 2011. The identity and generic placement of Jchneumon punctum Shaw (Hyme- 
noptera: Mymaridae), and designation of a neotype. Journal of Hymenoptera Research, 
29: 47-63. 

Huber, J.T. & Lin, N.-Q. 2000 (1999). World review of the Camptoptera group of genera 
(Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Ontario, 130: 
21-65. 

Kryger, J.P. 1950. The European Mymaridae comprising the genera known up to c. 1930. 
Entomologiske Meddelelser, 26: 1-97. 


126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


Shaw, G. 1798. Account, accompanied by a figure, of a minute Jchneumon. Transactions of the 
Linnaean Society of London, 4: 189, pl.18, fig. 1. 

Westwood, J.O. 1840. An introduction to the modern classification of insects; founded on the 
natural habits and corresponding organisation of the different families, vol. I, i—xi, 1-587, 
followed by Synopsis of the genera of British insects, pp. 1154, followed by Addenda to the 
generic synopsis of British insects, pp. 155-158. Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & 
Longmans, London. 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 68: 2 


Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 127 


Case 3536 


Stegosaurus Marsh, 1877 (Dinosauria, Ornithischia): proposed 
replacement of the type species with Stegosaurus stenops Marsh, 1887 


Peter M. Galton 


College of Naturopathic Medicine, University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT, 
U.S.A. & Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New 
Haven, CT, U.S.A. (e-mail: pgalton@bridgeport.edu) 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 81.1 of the Code, is to 
preserve stability in the taxonomy of stegosaurian dinosaurs by replacing Stegosaurus 
armatus Marsh, 1877, the unidentifiable type species of the ornithischian dinosaur 
genus Stegosaurus Marsh, 1877, with the very well represented nominal species 
Stegosaurus stenops Marsh, 1887, also from the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation, 
U.S.A. This genus is the basis for Stegosauria Marsh, 1877, STEGOSAUROIDEA Marsh, 
1880, STEGOSAURIDAE Marsh, 1880 and sTEGOSAURINAE Marsh, 1880. Maidment et al. 
(2008) listed seven putative autapomorphic characters for Stegosaurus and five for 
the species Stegosaurus armatus in its current usage. However, the holotype of S. 
armatus, which consists of an articulated series of 18 incomplete vertebrae from the 
proximal half of the tail and a very large but incomplete dermal plate, shows none of 
these diagnostic characters and so S. armatus must be considered a nomen dubium. 
However, the holotype of S. stenops Marsh, 1887 shares all 12 autapomorphies with 
S. armatus in its current usage, being based on an almost complete skeleton (USNM 
4934), most of it still in the rock preserving almost natural articulation, which would 
make S. stenops by far the best available species to replace S. armatus as type species 
of Stegosaurus Marsh, 1877. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Dinosauria; Ornithischia; Stegosauria; STEGO- 
SAURIDAE; STEGOSAURINAE; Stegosaurus; S. armatus; S. stenops; western U.S.A.; Upper 
Jurassic. 


1. Marsh (1877, p. 513) established Stegosaurus armatus (and the order Stegosau- 
ria) based on unfigured material (YPM 1850) from Morrison, Wyoming from what 
is now known as the Morrison Formation, the source of all stegosaurs collected from 
the U.S.A. Marsh (1880) also erected the sTEGOSAURIDAE. Subsequent workers 
recognised Stegosaurus armatus without reference to the holotype that was rede- 
scribed by Carpenter & Galton (2001; see also Galton 2010, fig. 1). YPM 1850 
includes several incomplete vertebrae: 2 dorsals, caudal 1 or 2, an anterior caudal 
vertebra, several blocks containing 16 incomplete articulated vertebrae from the 
proximal half of the tail, and a very large but incomplete dermal plate. 

2. Cope (1878) described, but did not illustrate, material from Garden Park near 
Cafion City, Colorado, as Hypsirhophus discursus. The holotype (AMNH 5731) is a 
dorsal vertebra and an incomplete anterior caudal neural arch. It was redescribed by 
Carpenter (1998a), who tentatively considered it to be a valid taxon, as did Carpenter 


128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


et al. (2001), based on characters of the dorsal vertebra. It has also been regarded as 
a junior synonym of Stegosaurus armatus (Galton, 1990; Galton & Upchurch, 2004; 
Maidment et al., 2008; Maidment, 2010) or as a valid species (Galton 2010). 

3. Marsh (1879, p. 504) briefly described Stegosaurus ungulatus based on two 
partial skeletons YPM 1853 (which may represent more than one individual, see 
Carpenter & Galton, 2001) and YPM 1858 from YPM Quarries 12 and 11, 
respectively, at Como Bluff near Como station, Wyoming. Bones of the syntypes 
were figured by Marsh (1880, 188la, 1891, 1896), Lull (1910), Gilmore (1914), 
Ostrom & McIntosh (1966, 1999), Carpenter & Galton (2001) and Galton (2001, 
2010). S. ungulatus is currently regarded as a junior synonym of S. armatus (Galton, 
1990; Galton & Upchurch, 2004; Maidment et al., 2008) or as a valid species (Galton 
& Carpenter, 2001; Galton 2001, 2010, figs. 2b, 3a—e, k—o, r). 

4. Marsh (1881b, p. 421) established Diracodon laticeps based on the characters of 
teeth in a pair of maxillae from YPM Quarry 13, Como Bluff. Gilmore (1914) 
considered a distal tail with spikes (USNM 4288) and three carpal bones in manus 
referred to Diracodon laticeps by Marsh (1887, p. 416, pl. 9), and probably also the 
holotype maxillae, to represent juvenile individuals of Stegosaurus stenops Marsh, 
1887 (Gilmore, 1914, pp. 104, 108-109). The two incomplete holotype tooth-bearing 
bones, YPM 1885, were first illustrated as dentaries by Carpenter & Galton (2001). 
Diracodon laticeps Marsh, 1881b is regarded as a nomen dubium (Carpenter & 
Galton, 2001) or, incorrectly, as a valid taxon (Bakker, 1986, pp. 188, 227) or a junior 
synonym of either Stegosaurus stenops Marsh, 1887 (Galton, 1990, 2010; Galton & 
Upchurch, 2004) or S. armatus Marsh, 1877 (Maidment et al., 2008). 

5. In 1887 Marsh figured a complete skull (USNM 4934) from Garden Park as 
Stegosaurus stenops. The rest of the skeleton, which 1s still in more or less natural 
articulation as found with 17 plates in position (see Gilmore, 1914; Czerkas, 1987) 
is complete except for a few distal caudal vertebrae and the anterior pair of tail 
spikes. The bones were described by Gilmore (1914) and illustrated by Marsh (1891, 
1896) and Ostrom & McIntosh (1966, 1999). The skull was also described by Huene 
(1914) and reconstructed in several views by Galton (1990), Sereno & Dong (1992) 
and Galton & Upchurch (2004). Reconstructions of the skeleton, with the last part 
of the tail and the anterior pair of tail spikes based on USNM 4714 from YPM 
Quarry 13, Como Bluff (Gilmore 1914) were given by Czerkas (1987) and by Paul 
(1992), Galton (1997, 2010) and Carpenter (2010) who also used data from a second 
articulated, almost complete referred skeleton from Garden Park (DMNH 2818, see 
Carpenter, 1998b, fig. 2 as found in quarry, 2007, fig. 2 for other side; found 
stratigraphically within 10 m of the holotype). S. stenops is regarded either as a valid 
species (Galton, 1990, 2010; Galton & Upchurch, 2004; Carpenter et al., 2001; 
Carpenter, 2010) or as a junior synonym of S. armatus (Maidment et al., 2008; 
Maidment, 2010). 

6. Stegosaurus duplex Marsh, 1887 (p. 416) is based on a partial skeleton lacking 
dermal armor (YPM 1858) from YPM Quarry 12 at Como Bluff, which was described 
and/or illustrated by Marsh (188la, 1891, 1896), Lull (1910), Ostrom & McIntosh 
(1966, 1999) and Carpenter & Galton (2001). S. duplex has been regarded as a junior 
objective synonym of S. ungulatus Marsh, 1879 (Lull, 1910; Gilmore, 1914; Carpenter 
& Galton, 2001; Galton, 2001, 2010; Maidment et al., 2008, p. 382), which in turn is 
either a valid species or a junior synonym of S. armatus (see section 3). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 129 


7. Marsh (1887) illustrated a tail spike, USNM 4937 from YPM Quarry 13 at 
Como Bluff, as Stegosaurus sulcatus. Gilmore (1914) figured this tail spike in 
articulation with its antimere that lacks sulci. Bakker (1988) showed that the 
curvature of the very wide spike bases was too shallow to fit over the distal part of 
the tail. This species is regarded as valid (Galton, 2010, figs. 3g, q), as a junior 
synonym of S. armatus (Galton, 1990; Galton & Upchurch, 2004), or as a nomen 
dubium (Maidment et al., 2008). 

8. Gilmore (1914) described and diagnosed the species of Stegosaurus based on the 
USNM holotypes of S. stenops and S. sulcatus, and reproduced line drawings of S. 
ungulatus from Marsh (1896). He erected S. /ongispinus for a partial skeleton, UW 
D54 (now UW 20503) from Alcova, Natrona County, Wyoming. This species is 
considered to be a nomen dubium (Maidment et al., 2008) or valid (Galton, 1990, 
2010; Carpenter et al., 2001; Galton & Upchurch, 2004); it is diagnosed by very 
distinctive distal caudal vertebrae and two pairs of very elongate tail spikes with 
sub-equal bases (Galton, 2010, figs. 3h—j, u, v). 

9. Ostrom & McIntosh (1966, reprinted 1999) provided copies of the unpublished 
lithographic plates of Stegosaurus prepared under the supervision of O.C. Marsh in the 
1880s. They labelled specimens as S. armatus (referred braincase USNM 4936 from 
Garden Park; braincase and associated postcrania described by Galton (2001) as S. 
stenops), S. ungulatus (with S. duplex as a junior synonym), S. stenops and S. sulcatus. 

10. Galton (1990; also Galton & Upchurch, 2004) noted that the holotype of 
Stegosaurus armatus needed further preparation but considered that S. ungulatus was 
probably a junior synonym, along with Hypsirhopus discursus, Stegosaurus sulcatus 
and S. duplex. S. stenops and S. longispinus were regarded as separate valid species. 

11. Carpenter et al. (2001) described Hesperosaurus mjosi based on a partial 
skeleton (HMNH 001, cast DMNH 29431) from low in the Morrison Formation in 
Johnson County, Wyoming. The holotype consists of a nearly complete, disarticu- 
lated skull, a complete vertebral column, a partial left scapula and coracoid, ilia, 
ischia, pubes, 11 dermal plates and four tail spikes. Carpenter et al. (2001) recognised 
Stegosaurus armatus, S. ungulatus, S. stenops, S. longispinus and Hypsirophus 
discursus as valid species. They also pointed out that the three genera of Morrison 
stegosaurs have a restricted distribution within the Dinosaur Zones of Turner & 
Peterson (1999), with Hesperosaurus limited to Zone 1, Stegosaurus to Zones 2 and 
3, and Hypsirophus to Zone 4. 

12. Based on a cladistic analysis of the species of Stegosauria they considered to be 
valid, Maidment et al. (2008) gave seven autapomorphies for the genus Stegosaurus 
sensu Maidment et al. (2008) and five for the species armatus, with Hypsirophus 
discursus, Stegosaurus ungulatus (with S. duplex as a subjective junior synonym), 
Diracodon laticeps, and Stegosaurus stenops as junior synonyms of S. armatus, and S. 
sulcatus and S. longispinus as nomina dubia. Hesperosaurus mjosi and Wuerhosaurus 
homheni Dong, 1973 (Lower Cretaceous, China, see Dong, 1990) were referred to 
Stegosaurus as S. mjosi (Carpenter et al., 2001) and S. homheni (Dong, 1973) and also 
by Maidment (2010). 

13. Mossbrucker et al. (2009) noted that further preparation of the blocks of YPM 
1850 showed that two fit together (indicated by *, Galton 2010, fig. 1b) to give taller 
than predicted neural spines for mid-caudal centra, a possibly diagnostic character 
for Stegosaurus armatus as defined by the holotype. 


130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


14. Carpenter (2010) provided a revised diagnosis of Hesperosaurus mjosi (with 
contrasting character states for Stegosaurus stenops) that included characters from 
two referred skeletons from low in the Morrison Formation near Howe Ranch, 
Wyoming (see Siber & Moéckli, 2009). He considered that there are too many 
differences between the skeletons of H. mjosi and Stegosaurus stenops to support 
referral to the same genus (see skeletal reconstructions in Carpenter, 2010, figs. 7a, b). 

15. Maidment (2010) presented a historical survey of the stegosaurian species 
described from the Morrison formation and repeated the systematic conclusions of 
Maidment et al. (2008), 1.e. recognising Stegosaurus armatus (with Hypsirophus 
discursus, Stegosaurus ungulatus, Diracodon laticeps and Stegosaurus stenops as junior 
synonyms) and S. mjosi as valid taxa [also S. homheni (Dong, 1973)]. 

16. Galton (2010) noted that the holotype of Stegosaurus armatus displayed none 
of the five putative autapomorphic characters listed by Maidment et al. (2008) for the 
species armatus in its current usage and only one of the seven autapomorphic 
characters for the genus Stegosaurus, i.e. the transverse process on the anterior caudal 
vertebrae (except Cl and C2) projects ventrally rather than laterally. But the 
holotype of Hesperosaurus mjosi also has this feature, hence YPM 1850 actually 
displays no autapomorphic characters of S. armatus in its current usage and so S. 
armatus as defined by the holotype should therefore be considered a nomen dubium. 
Hypsirophus discursus Cope, 1878 and Diracodon affinis Marsh, 1881a, each with one 
of the autapomorphic characters of the species armatus in its current usage, are 
available as possible replacement type species for Stegosaurus Marsh, 1877. As noted 
in previous sections, most of the other species of Stegosaurus available as a 
replacement type species are based on incomplete, disarticulated partial skeletons 
with no skull or field records, i.e. S. ungulatus (has braincase but at least two 
individuals involved), S. duplex, S. sulcatus and S. longispinus (details in Galton, 
2010). In marked contrast, the holotype skeleton (USNM 4934) of S. stenops is 
almost complete, with a skull. It is mostly preserved in the rock as found, and there 
is another comparable complete articulated skeleton from the type locality. Stego- 
saurus stenops Marsh, 1887 displays all 12 autapomorphies determined for the 
currently accepted concept of S. armatus Marsh, 1877 by Maidment et al. (2008), and 
is) the only species showing the following two: alternating rows of dermal plates 
down the midline for Stegosaurus (also in DMNH 2818), and nuchal dermal ossicles 
for S. armatus (also in DMNH 2818). Consequently, Galton (2010) indicated the 
need to petition the Commission to designate Stegosaurus stenops Marsh, 1887 as the 
new type species of Stegosaurus Marsh, 1877 to replace S. armatus Marsh, 1877. This 
action would preserve stability by conserving Stegosaurus Marsh, 1877, Stegosauria 
Marsh, 1877, STEGOSAURIDAE Marsh, 1880, sTEGOSAUROIDEA Marsh, 1880 and sTEGo- 
SAURINAE Marsh, 1880. 

17. Should the more elongate mid-caudal neural spines of YPM 1850 prove to be 
a diagnostic character, as suggested by Mossbrucker et al. (2009), then this would be 
diagnostic for the species armatus as defined by the holotype and YPM 1850 would 
still lack any of the seven autapomorphies of the genus Stegosaurus in its current 
usage (Maidment et al., 2008). 

18. The possibility of designating the holotype of Stegosaurus stenops, USNM 
4934, as a neotype for S. armatus Marsh, 1879 in place of the latter’s extant holotype 
YPM 1850, thereby making the two names objective synonyms, has been considered. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 ist 


However, it was rejected on the basis that the synonymy of the two species cannot be 
proven and, because of the possible presence of a diagnostic character in the holotype 
that could differentiate the species armatus from other species in the group, this could 
possibly necessitate the erection of a new species for YPM 1850. The interests of 
stability at the generic level are not served by having armatus as the type species of 
Stegosaurus, because the incomplete and fragmentary holotype of this species lacks 
the characters of the widely used concept of that genus. In the absence of a 
Commission’s ruling, a new genus could be erected based on S. stenops, thereby 
restricting Stegosaurus to S. armatus, and giving a new name to the generally 
accepted concept of the genus Stegosaurus. Consequently, conserving the name of the 
universally known genus Stegosaurus in its current usage is considered urgent and 
important. 

19. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 

asked: 

(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the 
nominal genus Stegosaurus Marsh, 1877 and to designate Stegosaurus stenops 
Marsh, 1887 as the type species; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 
Stegosaurus Marsh, 1877 (gender: masculine), type species Stegosaurus stenops 
Marsh, 1887, as ruled in (1) above; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name stenops 
Marsh, 1887, as published in the binomen Stegosaurus stenops (specific name 
of the type species of Stegosaurus Marsh, 1877, as ruled in (1) above). 


Institutional abbreviations: AMNH, American Museum of Natural History, New 
York, U.S.A.; DMNH, Denver Museum of Nature and Science (formerly Denver 
Museum of Natural History), Colorado, U.S.A.; HMNH, Hayashibara Museum of 
Natural History, Okayama, Japan; USNM, National Museum of Natural History 
(formerly United States National Museum), Washington, D.C., U.S.A.; UW, 
Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Wyoming, Laramie, U.S.A; 
and YPM, Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, 
Connecticut, U.S.A. 


References 


Abel, O. 1919. Die Stamme der Wirbeltiere. 914 pp. De Gruyter, Berlin & Leipzig. 

Bakker, R.T. 1986. The dinosaur heresies: new theories unlocking the mystery of the dinosaurs 
and their extinction. 482 pp. William Morrow, New York. 

Bakker, R.T. 1988. Review of the Late Cretaceous nodosauroid Dinosauria Denversaurus 
schlessmani, a new armor-plated dinosaur from the latest survivor of the nodosaurians, 
with comments on stegosaur-nodosaur relationships. Hunteria, 1: 1-23. 

Carpenter, K. 1998a. Armor of Stegosaurus stenops, and the taphonomic history of a new 
specimen from Garden Park, Colorado. Modern Geology, 23: 127-144. 

Carpenter, K. 1998b. Vertebrate biostratigraphy of the Morrison Formation near Cafion City, 
Colorado. Modern Geology, 23: 407-426. 

Carpenter, K. 2007. How to make a fossil: Part 1 — Fossilizing bone. Journal of Paleontological 
Sciences, 1: 1-10. 

Carpenter, K. 2010. Species concepts in North American stegosaurs. Swiss Journal of 
Geosciences, 103: 155-162. 


132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


Carpenter, K. & Galton, P.M. 2001. Othniel Charles Marsh and the myth of the eight-spiked 
Stegosaurus. Pp. 76-102 in Carpenter, K. (Ed.), The armored dinosaurs. Indiana Univer- 
sity Press, Bloomington. 

Carpenter, K., Miles, C.A. & Cloward, K. 2001. New primitive stegosaur from the Morrison 
Formation, Wyoming. Pp. 55—75 in Carpenter, K. (Ed.), The armored dinosaurs. Indiana 
University Press, Bloomington. 

Cope, E.D. 1878. A new genus of Dinosauria from Colorado. American Naturalist, 12: 181. 

Czerkas, S.A. 1987. A reevaluation of the plate arrangement on Stegosaurus stenops. Pp. 83-99 
in Czerkas, S.J. & Olson, E.C. (Eds.), Dinosaurs past and present, Volume 2. University of 
Washington Press, Seattle. 

Dong, Z.-M. 1973. Dinosaurs from Wuerho. Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and 
Paleoanthropology, Memoirs, 11: 45-52. 

Dong, Z.-M. 1990. Stegosaurs of Asia. Pp. 255-268 in Carpenter, K. & Currie, P.J. (Eds.), 
Dinosaur systematics. Approaches and _ perspectives. Cambridge University Press, 
Cambridge. 

Galton, P.M. 1990. Stegosauria. Pp. 435-455 in Weishampel, D.B., Dodson, P. & Osmdlska, 
H. (Eds.), The Dinosauria, Ist Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley. 

Galton, P.M. 1997. Stegosaurs. Pp. 291-306 in Farlow, J.A. & Brett-Surman, M.K. (Eds.), The 
complete dinosaur. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. 

Galton, P. M. 2001. Endocranial casts of the plated dinosaur Stegosaurus (Upper Jurassic, 
western USA): A complete undistorted cast and the original specimens of Othniel Charles 
Marsh. Pp. 455-484 in Carpenter, K. (Ed.), The armored dinosaurs. Indiana University 
Press, Bloomington. 

Galton, P.M. 2010. Species of plated dinosaur Stegosaurus (Morrison Formation, Upper 
Jurassic) of western USA: new type species designation needed. Swiss Journal of 
Geosciences, 103: 187-198. 

Galton, P.M. & Upchurch, P. 2004. Stegosauria. Pp. 343-362 in Weishampel, D.B., Dodson, 
P. & Osmolska, H. (Eds.), The Dinosauria, 2nd edition. University of California Press, 
Berkeley. 

Gilmore, C.W. 1914. Osteology of the armoured Dinosauria in the United States National 
Museum, with special reference to the genus Stegosaurus. United States National Museum, 
Bulletin, 89: i—xi, 1-143, pls. 1-36. 

Hay, O.P. 1902. Bibliography and catalogue of the fossil Vertebrata of North America. United 
States Geological Survey, Bulletin, 179: 1-495. 

Huene, F. v. 1914. Uber die Zweistammigkeit der Dinosaurier, mit Beitragen zur Kenntnis 
einiger Schadel. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geologie und Paldontologie, Beilageband, 
37: 577-589. 

Lull, R.S. 1910. Stegosaurus ungulatus Marsh, recently mounted at the Peabody Museum of 
Yale University. American Journal of Science, (4)30: 361-377. 

Maidment, S.C.R. 2010. Stegosauria: a historical review of the body fossil record and 
phylogenetic relationships. Swiss Journal of Geosciences, 103: 199-210. 

Maidment, S.C.R., Norman, D.B., Barrett, P.M. & Upchurch, P. 2008. Systematics and 
phylogeny of Stegosauria (Dinosauria: Ornithischia). Journal of Systematic Palaeon- 
tology, 6: 367-407. 

Marsh, O.C. 1877. A new order of extinct Reptilia (Stegosauria) from the Jurassic of the 
Rocky Mountains. American Journal of Science, (3)14: 34-35. 

Marsh, O.C. 1879. Notice of new Jurassic reptiles. American Journal of Science, (3)18: 501-505. 

Marsh, O.C. 1880. Principal characters of American Jurassic dinosaurs. Part III. American 
Journal of Science, (3)19: 253-259. 

Marsh, O.C. 1881a. Principal characters of American Jurassic dinosaurs. Part IV: Spinal cord, 
pelvis, and limbs of Stegosaurus. American Journal of Science, (3)21: 167-170. 

Marsh, O.C. 1881b. Principal characters of American Jurassic dinosaurs. Part V. American 
Journal of Science, (3)21: 417-423. 

Marsh, O.C. 1882. Classification of the Dinosauria. American Journal of Science, (3)23: 81-86. 

Marsh, O.C. 1887. Principal characters of American Jurassic dinosaurs. Part [X: The skull and 
dermal armor of Stegosaurus. American Journal of Science, (3)34: 413-417. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 133 


Marsh, O.C. 1891. Restoration of Stegosaurus. American Journal of Science, (3)42: 179-181. 

Marsh, O. C. 1896. The dinosaurs of North America. United States Geological Survey, Annual 
Report, 16(1894—-95): 133-244. 

Mossbrucker, M. T., Bakker, R. T. & Prueher, L. 2009. New information regarding the 
holotype of Stegosaurus armatus (Marsh, 1877). Symposium on Stegosauria. June § and 9. 
Scientific Meeting at Sauriermuseum Aathal, Switzerland, Abstracts: 9. 

Ostrom, J.A. & McIntosh, J.S. 1966. Marsh's dinosaurs. The collections from Como Bluff. xiv, 
388 pp. Yale University Press, New Haven. 

Ostrom, J.A. & McIntosh, J.S. 1999. Marsh’s dinosaurs. The collections from Como Bluff: With 
a new forward by Peter Dodson and a historical update by Clifford A. Miles and David W. 
Hamblin. xxiv, 388 pp. Yale University Press, New Haven. 

Paul, G. 1992. The arrangement of the plates in the first complete Stegosaurus, from Garden 
Park. Tracks in Time, Garden Park Paleontological Society, 3(1): 1-2. 

Sereno, P.C. & Dong, Z.-M. 1992. The skull of the basal stegosaur Huayangosaurus taibaii and 
a cladistic diagnosis of Stegosauria. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 12: 318-343. 
Siber, H.J. & Méckli, U. 2009. The stegosaurs of the Sauriermuseum Aathal. 56 pp. 

Sauriermuseum, Aathal. 

Turner, C.E. & Peterson, F. 1999. Biostratigraphy of dinosaurs in the Upper Jurassic Morrison 
Formation of the Western Interior, U.S.A. Jn Gillette, D. (Ed.), Vertebrate Paleontology 
in Utah. Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication, 99-1: 77-114. 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 270. 


Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name Boccardia proboscidea 
Hartman, 1940 (Annelida, SPIONIDAE) 
(Case 3520; see BZN 67: 203-210) 


Kristian Fauchald 


National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, MRC 163, 
Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A. (e-mail: fauchald@si.edu) 


Vasily I. Radashevsky 


A.V. Zhirmunsky Institute of Marine Biology, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian 
Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok 690041, Russia (e-mail: radashevsky@gmail.com) 


Leslie H. Harris 


Research & Collections, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 
Los Angeles, California 90007, U.S.A. (e-mail: exogone@hotmail.com) 


The application by Radashevsky & Harris (BZN 67: 203-210) asked for conservation 
of the specific name Boccardia proboscidea Hartman, 1940, used for a widely 
dispersed mudworm (family sPIONIDAE) described from California and requested that 
all previous type designations for B. proboscidea be set aside in favour of a neotype. 
Part of their rationale for designating a neotype was based on the fact that 
while Hartman (1940) stated that the holotype was deposited at the United States 
National Museum (USNM), the vial Hartman sent to the USNM contained 
12 specimens. 

However, designation of a neotype would limit the name-bearing types of B. 
proboscidea to one specimen and deprive all the other specimens of this status. Such 
an act would contradict Hartman’s concept of type specimens which was based 
on the Ist and 2nd editions of the ICZN. Prior to 1999 the Code did not require 
a type specimen. Only after 1999 were holotype or syntypes required to be designated 
for any newly-described species-group taxon (Articles 72.2, 72.3 of the current 
Code). 

We do not know exactly why Hartman listed the multiple-specimen type lot of 
B. proboscidea as ‘the holotype’. In a letter dated 19 February 1937 to Dr Waldo 
Schmitt, Curator of Invertebrates, USNM, she said ‘I have sent off to you today, 
eight vials containing polychaetous specimens designated as holotypes’. In his return 
letter dated 27 February 1937, Dr Schmitt replied ‘In a few cases you had more than 
one worm in a bottle marked holotype. Of course, we shall select the nicest looking 
one for the holotype, but in the future it would be better if you were to specifically 
designate one species [sic; /apsus for specimen] of a lot as holotype either by tying on 
a bit of thread or else putting it in a separate vial’ (excerpts of the Hartman-Schmitt 
correspondence provided courtesy of the Smithsonian Institution Archives). Besides 
B. proboscidea, other spionid species with multi-specimen ‘holotypes’ are Polydora 
amarincola Hartman, 1936 (USNM 20214, 5 specimens, status listed as type in the 
USNM catalogue), Polydora brachycephala Hartman, 1936 (USNM 20215, 4 speci- 
mens, status listed as syntype in the USNM catalogue), Pygospio californica Hartman 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 135 


1936 (USNM 20219, 4 specimens, status listed as type in the USNM catalogue), 
Rhynchospio arenincola Hartman, 1936 (USNM 20221, 4 specimens, status errone- 
ously listed as paratype in the USNM catalogue), and Streblospio lutincola Hartman, 
1936 (USNM 20220, 15 specimens, status erroneously listed as paratype in the 
USNM catalogue). These problematic cases will be described in an upcoming 
catalogue of types of the spionid polychaetes deposited in North American museums 
(Harris & Radashevsky, in preparation). 

Joint work and personal collaboration with Olga Hartman by one of us (KF) and 
extensive study of Hartman’s personal papers preserved in the LACM by another 
(LH) unequivocally shows that Hartman believed a series of type specimens better 
represented a new species than a single holotype. Single specimen holotypes were 
designated by Hartman mainly when only one individual was available for exami- 
nation. We therefore assume that her designation of multiple-specimen type lots was 
due to Hartman’s personal concept of types. Why Hartman called these multiple- 
specimen lots holotypes instead of syntypes, as she did in some other cases, remains 
unknown. 

Hartman stated in several early papers that she deposited the holotypes of newly 
described species in the United States National Museum in Washington, D.C. and 
split the paratypes between the Zoological Museum of the University of California, 
Berkeley (where she received her Ph.D.) and the California Academy of Sciences, San 
Francisco. Around 1943 the bulk of the University of California polychaete 
collection, including type material, was given to the Allan Hancock Foundation, 
University of Southern California (AHF). As previously mentioned by Radashevsky 
& Harris (BZN 67: 203-210), there is evidence in Hartman’s personal papers and 
collection labels (LACM-AHF Polychaete Collection archives, unpublished) to show 
that LACM-AHF POLY 1226 was considered by Hartman to be a type lot for B. 
proboscidea. An early Allan Hancock Foundation type inventory made by Hartman 
includes ‘Boccardia proboscidea Hartman AHF no. 117 [cotype]’. The specimens in 
this lot and in the ‘holotype’ lot (USNM 20217) were all collected by Hartman on 4 
July 1934, from vertical burrows in intertidal sandstone at Caspar, Mendocino 
County, California. Both lots have been examined by VIR and found to include 
specimens of the same species in good condition. Under Article 72.4.1.1 of the current 
Code (‘For a nominal species or subspecies established before 2000, any evidence, 
published or unpublished, may be taken into account to determine what specimens 
constitute the type series.’) these two samples represent valid type material of the 
species. 

Article 75.5 of the Code was incorrectly used by Radashevsky & Harris (BZN 67: 
205) to justify designation of neotype for B. proboscidea. It refers to a situation when 
‘the taxonomic identity of a nominal species-group taxon cannot be determined from 
its existing name-bearing type (i.e. its name is a nomen dubium), and stability or 
universality are threatened thereby’. As Hartman’s types do exist in good condition 
with the problem being the uncertainty of which specimen is the holotype (i.e. the 
name-bearing specimen), we believe that the best solution about these types would be 
to leave them as syntypes. This would also be in agreement with what we feel was 
Hartman’s original intent. 

Consequently, we here suggest rephrasing the proposal by Radashevsky & Harris 
(BZN 67: 203-210) in the following manner: 


136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


13. The International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 
(1) to use its plenary power: 

(a) to rule that the name proboscidea Hartman, 1940, as published in the 
binomen Boccardia proboscidea, be given precedence over californica 
Treadwell, 1914, as published in the binomen Polydora californica, 
whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; 

(b) to suppress the name californica Fewkes, 1889, as published in the 
binomen Spio californica, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but 
not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 

(a) proboscidea Hartman, 1940, as published in the binomen Boccardia 
proboscidea and as defined by syntypes USNM 20217 and LACM-AHF 
POLY 1226, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over 
californica Treadwell, 1914, as published in the binomen Polydora califor- 
nica, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; 

(b) californica Treadwell, 1914, as published in the binomen Polydora califor- 
nica, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over 
proboscidea Hartman, 1940, as published in the binomen Boccardia 
proboscidea and as defined by syntypes USNM 20217 and LACM-AHF 
POLY 1226, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 

Zoology the name californica Fewkes, 1889, as published in the binomen Spio 

californica and as suppressed in (1)(b) above. 


Comments on the proposed designation of a neotype for the nominal species 
Chionobas chryxus Doubleday, 1849 (currently Oeneis chryxus; Insecta, 
Lepidoptera, NYMPHALIDAE) 

(Case 3495; see BZN 67: 121-128) 


(1) Jonathan P. Pelham 


Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture, Box 353010 University of 
Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 3010, U.S.A. (e-mail: zapjammer@frontier.com) 


I strongly disagree that stability is served by use of the plenary power to suppress the 
validly designated lectotype of Chionobas chryxus and replace it with a neotype. 

1. The lectotype of Oeneis chryxus designated by Shepard (1984) represents the 
taxon as it has been understood since its description. The statement in the abstract of 
the petition ‘the original figure perfectly matches males of one of the two species into 
which the species was later divided’ suggests widespread acceptance that there are 
two species when actually the matter of this species division into two is based only on 
two papers in the same publication. 

2. Only one paper has been published to date that utilises the nomenclature put 
forth by the authors in 2006 (Kondla, 2010) and that paper is by one of those authors. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 137 


3. The author of the petition claims that the lectotype is indeterminate, but this is 
a subjective matter not supported by the views of subsequent researchers. There is no 
reason to suppose that the male figured in Doubleday & Hewitson, apparently lost, 
is not the same species as the lectotype, possibly even collected with it, and such has 
been held to be the case since the lectotype was designated. Most researchers are 
completely unaware of the issue and it seems prudent to await serious consideration 
from a broad spectrum of naturalists before any decision requiring the plenary power 
is rendered. 

4. It is my opinion that the designation of a neotype through the exercise of the 
plenary power is unwarranted in the face of what remains a very limited view. It does 
not stabilise an uncertain nomenclature because at this time there is no uncertain 
nomenclature. 


Additional references 


Kondla, N.G. 2010. Section 2. Butterflies. Pp. 163-192 in Pohl, G.R., Anweiler, G.G., Schmidt, 
B.C. & Kondla, N.G. An annotated list of the Lepidoptera of Alberta, Canada. ZooKeys, 
38: 1-549. 


(2) Andrew D. Warren 


McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, Florida Museum of Natural 
History, University of Florida, SW 34th Street and Hull Road, P.O. Box 112710, 
Gainesville, FL 32611-2710, U.S.A. (e-mail: andy@butterfliesofamerica.com) 


There is no ‘exceptional need’ for a neotype of Chionobas chryxus. The petitioner 
claims that there are two species of ‘Oeneis chryxus’ occurring in Colorado and 
elsewhere in the Rocky Mountains of western North America. This hypothesis was 
recently proposed (Scott, 2006), and has never been tested through rigorous 
morphological study or molecular techniques. Subsequent authors dealing with the 
North American fauna have not followed Scott’s nomenclature (with the single 
exception of Kondla (2010)). Much of the wording in Scott’s petition portrays as 
‘fact’ concepts that have never been corroborated by detailed research. Many 
statements presented as fact about ‘two species’ in the southern Rocky Mountains on 
pages 125-127 of the petition are debatable, and some are erroneous. My own 
experience with Oeneis in Colorado (where I grew up collecting them regularly, 
including the same populations Scott has based his hypotheses upon), as well as 
current insight gleaned from curating 3,376 specimens of the Oeneis chryxus complex 
in the collections of the McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, Florida 
Museum of Natural History, University of Florida [MGCL], suggest that Scott has 
badly misinterpreted the actual patterns of geographic variation in Oeneis chryxus. 

There seem to be two taxonomic entities within Oeneis chryxus in Colorado, but 
my preliminary analysis of MGCL material indicates only one species is likely to be 
present. This same analysis indicates that the high-elevation entity O. chryxus 
altacordillera Scott from Colorado does not occur to the north in the Rocky 
Mountains of Wyoming, Montana and Alberta. In this region, only one taxon is 


138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


present, which has always been regarded as Oeneis chryxus. O. chryxus altacordillera 
does not occur in Alberta (none of 155 specimens examined from Alberta in MGCL 
could be considered altacordillera), and its occurrence in Montana and Wyoming is 
doubtful. Thus, there should be no confusion over the identity of Shepard’s (1984) 
lectotype for Chionobas chryxus, very probably from Alberta. 

Much of Scott’s argument for the need of a neotype is based on the hypothesis that 
females of O. chryxus are not useful for identifying subspecies (or sibling species as 
claimed by Scott). In my experience, this is simply not the case. Females of O. chryxus 
demonstrate as much geographic variation as males, and are useful for identifying 
subspecies-level taxa, including altacordillera (as defined by Scott). Most impor- 
tantly, all authors prior to Scott (Case 3495, who suggested Wyoming) agree that 
Shepard’s (1984) lectotype female likely originated in the Rocky Mountains of 
Alberta. 

My analysis of the Oeneis chryxus group, together with recent literature, leads me 
to believe that Scott’s hypotheses about species-level relationships in the group are 
almost certainly incorrect. Most of the statements presented as facts about the 
supposed species diversity of the group in the southern Rocky Mountains are 
untested hypotheses, and have not been widely accepted in the recent literature. Most 
importantly, if Scott’s altacordillera does not occur as far north as the Rocky 
Mountains of Alberta, there should be no confusion over the identity of any female 
Oeneis chryxus from this region or of Shepard’s (1984) lectotype from the Alberta 
Rockies, so therefore there is absolutely no need for a neotype. 


Additional references 


Kondla, N.G. 2010. Section 2. Butterflies. Pp. 163-192 in Pohl, G.R., Anweiler, G.G., Schmidt, 
B.C. & Kondla, N.G. An annotated list of the Lepidoptera of Alberta, Canada. ZooKeys, 
38: 1-549. 


(3) John V. Calhoun 


977 Wicks Drive, Palm Harbor, Florida, 34684—4656, U.S.A. and McGuire Center 
for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of 
Florida, Gainesville, Florida, U.S.A. (e-mail: bretcall @verizon.net) 


This case is based on the premise that the nominal species Chionobas chryxus can not 
be identified from its existing name-bearing type, and stability or universality are 
thereby threatened. With the exception of Scott (2006), in which Oeneis calais 
altacordillera was described, the identity of C. chryxus has remained virtually 
uncontested since it was named and figured in 1849. Kondla (2010), who co-authored 
portions of Scott (2006), is one of the few authors to subsequently employ the name 
Oeneis calais altacordillera. Based on recommendations from other lepidopterists, 
Pelham (2008) listed both calais and altacordillera as subspecies of chryxus. Holland 
(2010) also treated altacordillera as a subspecies of C. chryxus, which he characterised 
as a ‘plastic taxon’. Warren et al. (2010) treat altacordillera as a junior subjective 
synonym of nominotypical chryxus. 

There seems to be little justification at this time to set aside the valid lectotype of 
C. chryxus in response to the recognition of a poorly understood and contentious 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 199 


taxon. The lectotype specimen has been accepted as the type of Chionobas chryxus for 
over 80 years and is still considered by the majority of lepidopterists to represent this 
nominal species. I therefore perceive no imminent threat to nomenclatural stability 
which would warrant exercising Art. 81 in accordance with Art. 75.5 of the Code. 


Supplemental remarks 


I attempted by various means to locate the male specimen that was figured by 
Doubleday (1849). Because Edward Doubleday often exchanged specimens with the 
French entomologist Jean B.A.D. de Boisduval, I recently asked staff at the National 
Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.) to search 
that collection for the missing male (it was not found). With the help of library staff 
at NHM, I also recently searched, without success, for references to C. chryxus 
among the manuscripts of Edward Doubleday. 

Scott (para. 10) perceives Article 72.4.1.1 to be subservient to Article 72.4.1, thus 
he will accept the lectotype as valid only if these articles are interpreted indepen- 
dently. According to ICZN (1999, p. XIII), each article in the current edition of 
the Code ‘consists of one or more mandatory provisions, which are sometimes 
accompanied by Recommendations and/or illustrative Examples.’ This establishes 
that all provisions must be considered, but does not indicate that subsections are 
universally subservient. The insertion of 72.4.1.1 into the fourth edition of Code 
broadens the scope of 72.4.1 and eliminates the need to designate a neotype in many 
instances. External evidence can be valuable when attempting to determine the type 
series of a nominal taxon for which there was no written description (as in C. 
chryxus). The illustration of a single specimen does not remove the possibility that the 
author’s concept of that taxon was based upon multiple specimens. However, I feel 
that Article 72.4.1 lacks the necessary language to clearly embrace such circum- 
stances, thereby resulting in confusion over the application of 72.4.1.1 (as demon- 
strated by Case 3495). Article 72.4 should be modified to rectify this deficiency. 

Although Scott is reluctant to accept the lectotype pursuant to Article 72.4.1.1, 
ample published and unpublished evidence suggests that this specimen was a syntype 
of C. chryxus. In addition to the evidence reviewed by Scott, Butler (1868) did not list 
any other species of Oeneis (=Chionobas) in the British Museum from ‘Rocky 
Mountains’ that were available to Doubleday. Although Butler (p. 162) listed 
Oeneis uhleri (Reakirt, 1866) from ‘Rocky Mountains’, he restricted the locality to 
‘Colorado Territory’ and did not denote that the British Museum possessed any 
specimens. This species was first collected in 1864 (Reakirt, 1866, p. 122) and the 
oldest specimens in NHM, from Colorado and Utah, are dated 1900 (B. Huertas, 
pers. comm.). 


Additional references 


Holland, R. 2010. A new subspecies of Oeneis chryxus (Nymphalidae: Satyridae) from south 
central New Mexico. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society, 64: 161-165. 

Kondla, N.G. 2010. Section 2. Butterflies. Pp. 163-192 in Pohl, G.R., Anweiler, G.G., Schmidt, 
B.C., & Kondla, N.G., An annotated list of the Lepidoptera of Alberta, Canada. 
ZooKeys, 38: 1-549. 

Pelham, J.P. 2008. A catalogue of the butterflies of the United States and Canada. With a 
complete bibliography of the descriptive and systematic literature. Journal of Research on 
the Lepidoptera, 40: i-xiv, 1-652. 


140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


Reakirt, T. 1866. Coloradian butterflies. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of 
Philadelphia, 6: 122-151. 

Warren, A.D., Davis, K., Grishin, N.V., Pelham, J.P. & Strangeland, M. 2010. Butterflies of 
America. Website, http://butterfliesofamerica.com (Accessed 14 June 2011). 


Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 
1812 (currently Geochelone (Aldabrachelys) gigantea; Reptilia, Testudines) 

(Case 3463; see BZN 66: 34-50, 80-87, 169-186, 274-290, 352-357; 67: 71-90, 
170-178, 246-254, 319-331; 68: 72-77) 


J. Frazier 


Department of Vertebrate Zoology — Amphibians & Reptiles, National Museum of 
Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, PO Box 37012, Washington DC 
20013-7012, U.S.A. (e-mail: kurma@shentel.net) 


Pat Matyot 


Seychelles Islands Foundation, Board of Trustees, clo PO Box 321, Victoria, Mahé, 
Seychelles (e-mail: pat.matyot@sbe.sc) 


Hoogmoed (BZN 68: 72-77) criticised the paper in Zootaxa by Frazier & Matyot 
(2010), calling for their conclusions to be considered void. The Zootaxa paper 
provided a detailed compilation and evaluation of numerous historic and contem- 
porary sources, considered results of consultations with diverse colleagues, and made 
two fundamental conclusions: (1) the locality for RMNH 3231, the lectotype of 
Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831, 1s uncertain; it is unlikely to be Aldabra Atoll, but is 
likely to be Mahé, granitic Seychelles; (2) the combination of apparent time and 
locality of collection, together with the unique haplotype, raises a possibility that the 
specimen is an extinct Seychelles tortoise — not an Aldabra tortoise. Despite his 
6-page comment, Hoogmoed provided no new information to remove uncertainty 
about the provenance and taxonomic identity of the specimen, and he continues to 
ignore recognised sources of error. Only a brief summary of the extensive details 
presented in Frazier & Matyot (2010) will be given herein, where we limit the 
discussion to the evidential basis of the issues. 


The locality of the lectotype of Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831 


There is no evidence that J.-J. Dussumier, considered to be the collector of the 
lectotype, ever visited Aldabra, but he is definitely known to have made collections 
on Mahé, in the granitic Seychelles, at a time (possibly as early as 1823) when native 
Seychelles tortoises were still in existence. Dussumier is also known to have visited 
the Mascarene Islands of Mauritius and Ile Bourbon (La Réunion), where thousands 
of tortoises from the granitic Seychelles, as well as from Aldabra, had been imported. 
For example, in his summary of historic records, Bour (1984, p. 302) reported that 
‘from 1773 to 1810, at least 25 ships carrying Tortoises from central Seychelles 
Islands entered Mauritius’, adding in a footnote that ‘a ship could load from 500 to 
6000 Tortoises’ (though the latter figure is questionable). According to Toussaint 
(1965, p. 56), in December 1808 the Favorite was still transporting a cargo of land 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 14] 


tortoises from Seychelles to Mauritius; likewise, in October 1807 the Amazone carried 
a load of land tortoises from Seychelles to Réunion (p. 61). A.M.C. Duméril, G. 
Bibron and A.H.A. Dumeéril, herpetologists at the Paris Museum where Dussumier’s 
collections were received, recorded his tortoises from Anjouan (Comores) and 
Seychelles — there is no mention of any Dussumier tortoise from Aldabra. 

Gray’s original (1831) description of 7. dussumieri is confused for many reasons; 
while he evidently saw a small tortoise in Leiden sometime before 1831, it is unclear 
— among other things — what data accompanied it, a fact recognised by Hoogmoed 
(BZN 68: 74). Several years later, in their section on 7. indica, Temminck & Schlegel 
(1834, p. 75) included the statement “Cet établissement a regu du Musée de Paris un 
autre individu trés-jeune, communiqué sous l’épithéte de Test. Dussumieri, rapporté 
par le voyageur dont elle porte le nom, de l’ile Aldebra située au nord du canal de 
Mosambique.’ [‘This institution {The Leiden Museum} has received from the Paris 
Museum another very young individual, sent under the name of Test. Dussumieri, 
brought by the traveler whose name it bears, from Aldabra Island situated in the 
north of the Mozambique Channel.’]. As Hoogmoed explained (BZN 68: 74 and 
following pages), it is unknown on what Temminck & Schlegel based this statement. 

Originally, Hoogmoed (BZN 66: 354-356; Hoogmoed et al., 2010) claimed that the 
lectotype has good locality data based on the assertion that the old label that 
accompanies RMNH 3231 was the ‘original label’ from Paris, but he now admits 
(BZN 68: 77) that ‘there is a good chance that the old label’ is not the original, and 
probably postdates both Gray and Temminck & Schlegel. He also acknowledges 
various other uncertainties, including unknown collection management practices 
during the early years of the Leiden Museum, beginning in 1820 and for the next few 
decades: ‘About the early history of its management we know little and it even is not 
quite certain when the present numbering system for reptiles and amphibians jointly 
was started, although there are some clues to that’ (p. 76). In addition, he recognises 
(p. 77) that ‘the name Test. dussumieri, mentioned by Temminck & Schlegel (1834) 
and Gray (1831 b) does not appear in the register or on the label’. Nonetheless, he 
(BZN 68: 72-77) continues to defend his earlier claim that the specimen’s locality is 
unequivocally known. The basis for his assertion now rests on Temminck & 
Schlegel’s (1834) above-quoted statement, although Hoogmoed acknowledges that 
the source of this is unknown. Hoogmoed fixedly disregards, among other things, a 
fundamental point explained by Matyot (BZN 66: 352): there is no evidence that 
Dussumier ever visited Aldabra atoll, or that he provided any collections from 
Aldabra. 

Hoogmoed’s faith in the purported provenance of the specimen based on a passage 
made years after the original description might be understandable if there were no 
contradictory evidence. If Temminck & Schlegel’s account were consistent with the 
localities reported by Dussumier and/or records of his specimens in the institution 
where his collections were originally received (Paris Museum), it would help build a 
case for the locality of the lectotype. However, Temminck & Schlegel’s statement 
stands alone and in contrast to historic information about Dussumier’s itineraries 
and collections. As much as Temminck & Schlegel (1834) give an authoritative 
account of what was known of chelonians at that time, Hoogmoed does not consider 
the dangers of erroneous documentation, a problem that has happened too many 
times in the past to be ignored — regardless of the scientific authority. This would not 


142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


be the first time Temminck’s name has been associated with incorrect localities and 
erroneous data regarding Dussumier’s travels. Desmarest (1826, pp. 215-216), 
reviewing Temminck’s Monographie de Mammalogies, drew attention to several such 
mistakes: “M. Temminck a été mal informé, pour l’indication des localités qu’il 
attribue aux animaux qu'il décrit, ou pour celle des lieux ot il fait aller les voyageurs 
naturalistes.... c’est ainsi qu’il fait voyager dans ces iles {les iles Mariannes} M. 
Dussumier, quoique ce négociant n’y soit jamais allé. . .” [“Mr. Temminck has been 
misinformed regarding the localities that he attributes to the animals he describes, or 
the places that he claims the naturalist-travellers called at. . . it is thus that he claims 
Mr. Dussumier travelled to these islands {the Marianas}, whereas this merchant 
never went there. . .’]. Moreover, Temminck is known to have made other serious 
mistakes in specimen localities and other associated data, some of which were 
described by Chris Smeenk, former Curator of Mammals of the Leiden Museum. 
Smeenk (2009) did a detailed evaluation of historic and bibliographic information 
concerning one of Captain Cook’s Australian possums Pseudocheirus peregrinus 
(Boddaert, 1785) and he stated flatly (p. 733): ‘Temminck (1824) has added to the 
confusion’, explaining several errors and the evident confounding of collectors and 
localities by this 19th century ornithologist. Smeenk’s summary remark (p. 737) is 
critical: ‘In this connection, it should be emphasized that many, if not most, early 
specimens in the Leiden Museum are insufficiently documented.’ 

Were RMNH 3231 just any specimen, the uncertainty about the locality might not 
be so important, but this is a lectotype, designated by opponents of Case 3463 to be 
the name-bearing type of the Aldabra tortoise. It hardly needs explaining further the 
tremendous, and unnecessary, confusion that would be caused by using a name- 
bearing type that has an uncertain provenance — worse yet if it turned out to have a 
locality totally inappropriate to the taxon in question. Myriad biological studies have 
faced serious problems for having relied on erroneous specimen documentation (e.g. 
Rasmussen & Prys-Jones, 2003; Boessenkool et al., 2010). 

As Dunn & Stuart (1951, p. 677) eloquently explained: ‘Just as reexamination of a 
type specimen may bring to light errors in the original description or characters not 
mentioned in it, so reexamination of the data accompanying the type specimen or 
related to it (original labels, collector’s notes, or itineraries, etc.) may add precision 
to or even alter the type locality as given in the original description.’ Article 76.2 of 
the Code makes it very clear that the precise locality of a lectotype is determined by 
the place of origin, not necessarily previously published statements. More and more 
speculations about what might, or might not, have happened to RMNH 3231 will not 
turn an equivocal locality into a known fact. 


The identity of the lectotype of Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831 


With the evidence that Dussumier’s tortoise was most likely collected in the granitic 
Seychelles at a time when the native tortoises were still extant, or possibly in the 
Mascarene Islands to where both Seychelles and Aldabra tortoises had been shipped, 
its taxonomic identity cannot be assumed. To date, no one who has declared that the 
lectotype is an Aldabra tortoise has provided a single basic measurement, much less 
a description of the diagnostic characters used to distinguish it from extinct 
Seychelles tortoise taxa. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 143 


Austin et al. (2003) have done the only genetic study on RMNH 3231, based on a 
336-bp fragment of mtDNA. They reported this specimen as haplotype B, with two 
nucleotide substitutions from the common haplotype A of the Aldabra tortoise; out 
of the 37 non-Madagascan specimens on which they reported, RMNH 3231 has a 
unique haplotype. Although this does not prove that the lectotype is from a different 
lineage, it contrasts with the lack of genetic variation in 915-pb fragments of mtDNA 
that Balmer et al. (2010) found in a sample of 112 tortoises on Aldabra. Notably, 
while Austin et al. concluded (p. 1422), with very careful language, that ‘the mtDNA 
of non-Madagascan Aldabrachelys studied here suggests that only a single species 
may be involved’ they preceded (p. 1421) this with the caveat: ‘there may have been 
some sampling of extinct lineages.’ Aware that information on genetic diversity of 
western Indian Ocean tortoise populations — particularly the extinct granitic 
Seychelles lineage(s) — is poorly known, Austin et al. were cautious about over- 
extending the interpretation of their results and making dogmatic statements. 
Contrary to Hoogmoed’s claim that the genetic research proves that the lectotype is 
an Aldabra tortoise, what is known to date of non-Madagascan Aldabrachelys 
haplotypes is not sufficient for distinguishing closely related lineages or specimen 
provenance (Austin in litt. 27 April 2011). Hence, the taxonomic identity of the 
lectotype remains unresolved. 


Conclusion 


The absence of an unequivocal locality defeats the supposed scientific value of 
RMNH 3231 as a name-bearing type for the Aldabra tortoise. Taken together with 
the uncertain taxonomic identity, the designation of this specimen as the name- 
bearing type for the Aldabra tortoise, and the continued use of the binomen, would 
only encourage debate, discord, and nomenclatural instability, incompatible with the 
primary objective of the Code: nomenclatural stability and universality. 


Additional references 


Balmer, O., Ciofi, C., Galbraith, D.A., Swingland, I.R., Zug, G.R. & Caccone, A. 2010. 
Population genetic structure of Aldabra giant tortoises. Journal of Heredity, 102(1): 
29-37. 

Boessenkool, S., Star, B., Scofield, R.P., Seddon, P.J. & Waters, J.M. 2010. Lost in translation 
or deliberate falsification? Genetic analyses reveal erroneous museum data for historic 
penguin specimens. Proceedings of the Royal Society, B, 227: 1057-1064. 

Desmarest, A.-G. 1826. [Note no. 193 in the ‘Zoologie’ section — review of Monographie de 
Mammalogies by C.-J. Temminck (1824)]. Bulletin des sciences naturelles et de géologie, 9: 
215-224. 

Dunn, E.R. & Stuart, L.C. 1951. On the legality of restriction of type locality. Science, 113 
(2946): 677-678. 

Rasmussen, P.C. & Prys-Jones, R.P. 2003. History vs mystery: the reliability of museum 
specimen data. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club Supplement, 123A: 66-94. 
Smeenk, C. 2009. Has one of Captain Cook’s possums landed in Leiden? The possible holotype 

of Pseudocheirus peregrinus (Boddaert, 1785). Zoologische Mededelingen, 83: 723-740. 

Toussaint, A. 1965. Le trafic commercial des Seychelles de 1773 a 1810. Journal of the 
Seychelles Society, 4: 20-61 (reproduced as “Annexe III’. Pp. 458-485 in Toussaint, A. 
1967. La route des tiles: contribution a ‘histoire maritime des Mascareignes. S.E.V.P.E.N., 
Paris.) 


144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Cyclodina aenea 
Girard, 1857 (currently Oligosoma aeneum; Reptilia, Squamata, SCINCIDAE) and 
suppression of the senior subjective synonym Tiliqua ornata Gray, 1843 (currently 
Oligosoma ornatum) 

(Case 3510; see BZN 67: 307-313) 


Rodney A. Hitchmough 


Species and Ecosystems Unit, R & D, Department of Conservation, P O Box 
10-420, Wellington 6143, New Zealand (e-mail: rhitchmough@doc. govt.nz) 


Geoffrey B. Patterson 


149 Mairangi Rd, Wilton, Wellington 6012, New Zealand 
(e-mail: geoffjoss@clear.net.nz) 


Although our case proposed the suppression of the name Tiliqua ornata Gray, 1843, 
in the light of subsequent discussions we have decided that the most important 
objective is to conserve the current usage of the names of the two skinks in question 
and that this could best be achieved by using a different approach. If a specimen of 
the ornate skink were to be designated as neotype under Article 75.6 of the Code to 
replace the holotype of Oligosoma ornatum (which is, in fact, a copper skink) then the 
current usage of the names of both Oligosoma ornatum and O. aeneum would be 
conserved. 

We consider that the specimen referred to as as a ‘homotype’ (possibly a 
misspelling of homeotype?) by Hardy (1977) for Cyclodina ornata — NMNZ 
RE.002457 (formerly NMNZ R.1815 and ED S.912), collected at Manakau, 
Horowhenua, by A.H. Whitaker, 7 September 1971, is indeed an example of the 
ornate skink and would therefore be a suitable neotype, thus conserving the current 
usage of both the scientific and vernacular names for this taxon. 

Consequently we would like to withdraw our previous proposal and, instead, the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: 

(1) to set aside the existing holotype of Tiliqua ornata Gray, 1843 and to designate 
as neotype specimen NMNZ RE.002457 (formerly NMNZ R.1815 and ED 
5.912) in the National Museum of New Zealand, Wellington, collected at 
Manakau, Horowhenua, by A.H. Whitaker, 7 September 1971; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name ornata 
Gray, 1843, as published in the binomen Tiliqua ornata, and as defined by the 
neotype designated in (1) above. 


Erratum 


The heading in BZN 67: 326 that reads “People who support summary comment on 
Case 3463 (list compiled between 14 and 3 November 2010)’ should read: ‘People 
who support the above summary comment on Case 3463 (list compiled between 14 
October and 3 November 2010)’. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 145 


OPINION 2271 (Case 3481) 


Crioceris quadripunctata Olivier, 1808 (currently Petauristes 
quadripunctatus; Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name conserved 


Abstract. The Commission has conserved the name Petauristes quadripunctatus 
(Olivier, 1808) for a common and widespread South Asian beetle originally described 
as Crioceris quadripunctata, by ruling that it is not invalid by reason of being a junior 
primary homonym of Crioceris quadripunctata Fabricius, 1801 (currently Monolepta 
quadripunctata). 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Coleoptera; CHRYSOMELIDAE; Petau- 
ristes; Petauristes quadripunctatus; Southern Asia. 


Ruling 
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the name gquadripunctata 
Olivier, 1808, as published in the binomen Crioceris quadripunctata, is not 
invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of guadripunctata 
Fabricius, 1801, as published in the binomen Crioceris quadripunctata. 
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 


in Zoology: 
(a) quadripunctata Fabricius, 1801, as published in the binomen Crioceris 
quadripunctata; 


(b) guadripunctata Olivier, 1808, as published in the binomen Crioceris 
quadripunctata, with the endorsement that it is not invalid by reason of 
being a junior primary homonym of quadripunctata Fabricius, 1801, as 
published in the binomen Crioceris quadripunctata, as ruled in (1) above. 


History of Case 3481 


An application to conserve the use of the name Petauristes quadripunctatus (Olivier, 
1808) for a common and widespread South Asian beetle originally described as 
Crioceris quadripunctata, and thus a junior primary homonym of Crioceris quadri- 
punctata Fabricius, 1801 (currently Monolepta quadripunctata), was received from 
Hans Silfverberg (Finnish Museum of Natural History, Zoological Museum, Helsinki 
University, Helsinki, Finland) on 24 October 2008. After correspondence the case was 
published in BZN 66: 317-319 (December 2009). The title, abstract and keywords of 
the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments were received on 
this case. 


Decision of the Commission 


On | December 2010 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 66: 318. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 
2011 the votes were as follows: 


146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


Afhrmative votes — 23: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, 
Halliday, Harvey, Kojima, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lim, Minelli, Pape, Papp, 
Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Winston, Yanega and Zhou. 

Negative votes — 2: Lamas and Zhang. 

Alonso-Zarazaga, Ng and Pyle were on leave of absence. 

Voting FOR, Harvey commented that, although he felt the case was relatively 
straightforward and he supported the application to maintain existing usage of the 
junior homonym, he advised that details of any existing type specimens of both 
Crioceris quadripunctata Fabricius, 1801 and Crioceris quadripunctata Olivier, 1808 
should be supplied to verify current taxonomic placements. Also voting FOR, 
Kottelat said that the application referred to Article 23.9.5, which says that ‘the case 
should be referred to the Commission’ in the English version of the Code. However, 
the French version says that ‘[the author] may submit the case to the Commission’, 
which has different implications. 


Original references 


The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 


quadripunctata, Crioceris, Fabricius, 1801, Systema Eleutheratorum. Tomus II. Kiliae, p. 460. 
quadripunctata, Crioceris, Olivier, 1808, Entomologie, ou Histoire Naturelle des Insectes. 
Coléoptéres. Tome sixiéme, Paris, Chez Desray, p. 731. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 147 


OPINION 2272 (Case 3484) 


NOMIIDAE Gozis, 1875 (Insecta, Coleoptera): spelling emended to 
NOMIUSIDAE to remove homonymy with NOMIINAE Robertson, 1904 
(Insecta, Hymenoptera) 


Abstract. The Commission has ruled that homonymy between the Coleoptera 
family-group name NOMIIDAE Gozis, 1875 (type genus Nomius Laporte, 1835) and 
Hymenoptera family-group name NOMIINAE Robertson, 1904 (type genus Nomia 
Latreille, 1804) be removed by changing the spelling of the senior name (the entire 
generic name of Nomius is used to form NOMIUSIDAE), while the hymenopteran 
family-group name (based on Nomia Latreille, 1804) remains unaltered. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; Coleoptera; CARABIDAE; NOMIIDAE; 
NOMIINAE; NOMIUSIDAE; Nomia; Nomius; Nomia curvipes; Nomius graecus; Morio 
pygmaeus; ground beetles; sweat bee; Nearctic; Palaearctic; Afrotropical; Asia; 
Australia. 


Ruling 
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that for the purposes of Article 29 
of the Code the stem of the generic name Nomius Laporte, 1835 is Nomius-. 
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology: 
(a) Nomius Laporte, 1835 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy 
Nomius graecus Laporte, 1835; 
(b) Nomia Latreille, 1804 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy 
Andrena curvipes Fabricius, 1781. 
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology: 
(a) pygmaeus Dejean, 1831, as published in the binomen Morio pygmaeus 
(senior subjective synonym of Nomius graecus Laporte, 1835, valid specific 
name of the type species of Nomius Laporte, 1835); 
(b) curvipes Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Andrena curvipes 
(specific name of the type species of Nomia Latreille, 1804). 
(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group 
Names in Zoology: 
(a) NOMIUSIDAE Gozis, 1875, type genus Nomius Laporte, 1835 (spelling 
emended by the ruling in (1) above) (Insecta, Coleoptera); 
(b) NOMIINAE Robertson, 1904, type genus Nomia Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, 
Hymenoptera). 
(5) The name NOMIIDAE Gozis, 1875 (spelling emended to NOMIUSIDAE, as ruled in 
(1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Family-Group Names in Zoology (Insecta, Coleoptera). 


148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


History of Case 3484 


An application to remove homonymy between the family-group name NOMIIDAE 
Gozis, 1875 (Insecta, Coleoptera), a senior homonym of NOMIINAE Robertson, 1904 
(Insecta, Hymenoptera), long-considered to be a synonym of PsYDRINA LeConte, 
1853, by emending the stem of the generic name Nomius Laporte, 1835 on which the 
beetle family-group name is based, to give NOMIUSIDAE, was received from Michael S. 
Engel (University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, U.S.A.) and Patrice Bouchard (Canadian 
National Collection of Insects, Arachnids and Nematodes, Agriculture and Agri-Food 
Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada) on 15 December 2008. After correspondence the case 
was published in BZN 66: 30-33 (March 2010). The title, abstract and keywords of 
the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were 
received. 


Decision of the Commission 


On 1 March 2010 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 66: 31. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 2010 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 22: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, 
Halliday, Harvey, Krell, Lamas, Lim, Minelli, Ng, Pape, Papp, Patterson, 
Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Winston, Yanega and Zhou. 

Negative votes — 2: Alonso-Zarazaga and Kullander. 

Split vote: Kottelat voted FOR proposals (1), (2), (3)(b), (4) and AGAINST (3)(a) 
and (5). 

Kojima abstained. Pyle and Zhang were on leave of absence. 

Voting AGAINST, Alonso-Zarazaga said he felt that the authors should have 
respected the Principle of Priority and not affected the name NOMIIDAE Gozis, 1875, 
which is perfectly constructed. In his view a more acceptable proposal would have 
requested modification of NOMIDAE Robertson, 1904, which is a later name, to 
NOMIAIDAE. Also voting AGAINST, Kullander said that the proposal did not explain 
the etymology of Nomius or Nomia, which might have provided more options for 
family names. Kottelat explained his split votes AGAINST in detail. He voted 
AGAINST (3)(a) because pygmaeus is not the type species of Nomius; the type species 
is graecus, as stated in (2)(a), suggesting that graecus should be the name placed on 
the Official List; he voted AGAINST proposal (5) because after the decision in (1) 
NOMIIDAE Gozis is not a name but an erroneous original spelling of NOMIUSIDAE Gozis. 
Logically and semantically, a name cannot be at the same time listed as a valid name 
under one spelling and as an invalid name under another spelling. It is one or the 
other, but not both. This is a gross confusion of the words ‘name’ and ‘spelling’, 
as explained in the ICZN Glossary. And as the Indexes of Names and Lists of 
Names are for listing names, spellings cannot and should not be listed. Kojima 
ABSTAINED, saying that suppression of NOMIIDAE Gozis, 1875 could be a simpler 
solution. 


Original references 


The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes 
by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 149 


curvipes, Andrena, Fabricius, 1781, Species insectorum, exhibentes eorum differentias specificas, 
synonyma auctorum, loca natalia, metamorphosin, adjectis observationibus, descriptionibus, 
p. 182. 

Nomia Latreille, 1804, Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle, appliquée aux arts, princi- 
palement a lagriculture et a l’'economie rurale et domestique, Tome 24 [vol. 24], p. 182. 

NOMIIDAE Gozis, 1875, Catalogue des coléoptéres de France et de la fauna Gallo-Rhénane, 2, 
pe: 133 

NOMIINAE Robertson, 1904, Canadian Entomologist, 36: 42. 

Nomius Laporte, 1835, Etudes entomologiques, ou descriptions d’insectes nouveaux; et observa- 
tions sur leur synonymie, p. 144. 

NOMIUSIDAE Gozis, 1875, Catalogue des coléoptéres de France et de la faune Gallo-Rhénane, 2, 
Dr), 

pygmaeus, Morio, Dejean, 1831, Species général des coléoptéres, de la collection de M. le Comte 
Dejean. Tome cinquiéme, p. 512. 


150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


OPINION 2273 (Case 3497) 


Cyphon palustris Thomson, 1855 (Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name 
conserved 


Abstract. The Commission has conserved the specific name of the widespread 
Palaearctic marsh beetle Cyphon palustris Thomson, 1855 (SCIRTIDAE), published as a 
junior primary homonym of Cyphon palustris Germar, 1818 (currently Eubria 
palustris, PSEPHENIDAE) by ruling it to be not invalid by reason of being a junior 
primary homonym. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Coleoptera; SCIRTIDAE; PSEPHENIDAE; 
Cyphon; Eubria; Cyphon palustris; Eubria palustris; marsh beetles; water penny 
beetles; Palaearctis. 


Ruling 
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the name palustris Thomson, 

1855, as published in the binomen Cyphon palustris, is not invalid by reason of 

being a junior primary homonym of palustris Germar, 1818, as published in the 

binomen Cyphon palustris. 
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology: 

(a) palustris Thomson, 1855, as published in the binomen Cyphon palustris 
(with the endorsement that it is not invalid by reason of being a junior 
primary homonym of palustris Germar, 1818, as published in the binomen 
Cyphon palustris, as ruled in (1) above); 

(b) palustris Germar, 1818, as published in the binomen Cyphon palustris. 


History of Case 3497 


An application to conserve the specific name of the widespread Palaearctic marsh 
beetle Cyphon palustris Thomson, 1855 (sciRTIDAE), published as a junior primary 
homonym of Cyphon palustris Germar, 1818 (currently Eubria palustris, PSEPHENIDAE) 
by ruling it to be not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym was 
received from Oscar Vorst (National Museum of Natural History, Naturalis, Leiden, 
The Netherlands) on 25 June 2009. After correspondence the case was published in 
BZN 66: 323-326 (December 2009). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were 
published on the Commission’s website. No comments were received on this case. 


Decision of the Commission 


On 1 December 2010 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 66: 324. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 
2011 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, 
Halliday, Harvey, Kojima, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Minelli, Lamas, Pape, Papp, 
Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Winston, Yanega, Zhang and Zhou. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 BSI 


Negative votes — 1: Lim. 

Alonso-Zarazaga, Ng and Pyle were on leave of absence. 

Voting FOR, Grygier said he cannot understand what is meant by the word 
‘available’ cited in paragraph | in the Case, as in this context, Article 11.9.3.6 has 
nothing to do with the ‘availability’ of the transfer of a nominal species from one 
genus to another; in fact, the concept of ‘availability’ is inapplicable to such transfers. 


Original references 


The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 


palustris, Cyphon, Thomson, 1855, Ofversigt af Kongliga Vetenskaps-Akademiens Férhandlin- 
ear N27 320. 
palustris, Cyphon, Germar, 1818, Magazin der Entomologie (Germar ), 3: 238. 


152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


OPINION 2274 (Case 3455) 


Pseudobagrus Bleeker, 1859 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes, BAGRIDAE): 
conservation by suppression of a senior synonym not approved 


Abstract. An application to conserve the generic name Pseudobagrus Bleeker, 1859 
for a group of bagrid catfishes (order Siluriformes) by suppressing the senior name 
Tachysurus La Cepéde, 1803, was not approved by the Commission. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; BAGRIDAE; Pseudobagrus; Tachysurus; Pseudo- 
bagrus fulvidraco; Tachysurus sinensis; catfish; China. 


Ruling 

(1) It is hereby ruled that the following names are not suppressed: 
(a) Tachysurus La Cepede, 1803; 
(b) sinensis La Cepéde, 1803, as published in the binomen Tachysurus sinensis 

(specific name of the type species of Tachysurus La Cepéde, 1803). 

(2) No names are placed on Official Lists or Indexes and the issue is left open for 
subsequent workers to follow the precepts of the Code or to make new 
proposals to the Commission. 


History of Case 3455 


An application to conserve the generic name Pseudobagrus Bleeker, 1859 for a group 
of bagrid catfishes (order Siluriformes) by suppressing the senior name Tachysurus La 
Cepéde, 1803, was received from J. Andrés Lopez (Florida Museum of Natural 
History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, U.S.A.), E. Zhang and J-L. 
Cheng (Unstitute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, Hubei 
Province, China) on 13 March 2008. After correspondence the case was published in 
BZN 65: 202-204 (September 2008). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were 
published on the Commission’s website. An adverse comment was published in BZN 
67: 68-71. 


Decision of the Commission 


On 1 December 2010 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 65: 203-204. At the close of the voting period on | 
March 2011, the results were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 5: Bouchet, Grygier, Halliday, Papp and Yanega. 

Negative votes — 18: Ballerio, Brothers, Fautin, Harvey, Kojima, Kottelat, Krell, 
Kullander, Lamas, Lim, Minelli, Pape, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Winston 
and Zhang. 

Bogutskaya and Zhou abstained. Alonso-Zarazaga, Ng and Pyle were on leave of 
absence. 

Voting AGAINST, Brothers said that requesting the suppression of one of two 
names, both of which are stated to be widely used for different taxa, would seem to 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 153 


defeat any aim to promote stability, and result in a solution little different from that 
supposedly being countered, merely favouring the other name. Also voting 
AGAINST, Kojima commented that the identity of Tachysurus sinensis La Cepéde, 
1803 is now unambiguous, as its neotype has been designated by Ng & Kottelat 
(2007), and therefore the genus Tachysurus is well defined. Stys, voting AGAINST, 
said he agreed with the arguments provided in the comment by Ng & Kottelat (2010). 

Voting FOR, Yanega said that this case asked the Commission, in effect, to weigh 
which of two actions is more important to nomenclature; the fixation via type 
designation of a single previously extremely ambiguous name based solely upon an 
illustration, versus the generic placement of a large number of species. Clearly, the 
less disruptive alternative is to eliminate the name Jachysurus, rather than resurrect- 
ing it and giving it priority over other long-established and well- characterised names. 
Tachysurus may well be the correct name, following the Code, but sometimes stability 
takes precedence; while the scholarship and argumentation behind it is commend- 
able, the end result of resurrecting Tachysurus is unfavourable, and thus contrary to 
the overall aims of the Code. 


154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


OPINION 2275 (Case 3491) 


Podargus cornutus Yemminck, 1822 (currently Batrachostomus 
cornutus; Aves, PODARGIDAE): specific name conserved by designation 
of a neotype 


Abstract. The Commission has conserved the accustomed usage of the name cornutus 
Temminck, 1822 for the Sumatran population of the southeast Asian species 
currently named Batrachostomus javensis (Horsfield, 1821) (Aves, PODARGIDAE) by 
ruling that the name Podargus cornutus was proposed by Temminck (1822) for a new 
taxon, rather than as a replacement name for Podargus javensis Horsfield, 1821. The 
Commission has designated a neotype for Podargus cornutus Temminck, 1822. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Aves; PODARGIDAE; Batrachostomus; Podargus; 
Batrachostomus javensis; Batrachostomus cornutus; frogmouth; Java; Sumatra. 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the name Podargus cornutus 
was proposed by Temminck (1822) for a new taxon, rather than as a 
replacement name for Podargus javensis Horsfield, 1821. 

(2) The specimen in Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (MNHN), C.G. 
2004-45 (A.C. Ancien Catalog: 5221) is hereby designated as neotype of 
Podargus cornutus Temminck, 1822, as deemed available in (1) above. 

(3) The name cornutus Temminck, 1822, as published in the binomen Podargus 
cornutus, as deemed available in (1) above and as defined by the neotype in the 
Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris IMNHN), C.G. 2004-45 (A.C. 
Ancien Catalog: 5221) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology. 


History of Case 3491 


An application to conserve the accustomed usage of the name cornutus Temminck, 
1822 for the Sumatran population of the southeast Asian species currently named 
Batrachostomus javensis (Horsfield, 1821) (Aves, PODARGIDAE), was received from 
Nigel Cleere (Upper Bucklebury, Berkshire, U.K.), Edward C. Dickinson (Eastbourne, 
East Sussex, U.K.), Jean-Francois Voisin and Claire Voisin (Muséum National 
d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) on 12 March 2009. After correspondence the case 
was published in BZN 66: 327-331 (December 2009). The title, abstract and 
keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments 
were received on this case. 


Decision of the Commission 


On 1 December 2010 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 66: 329-330. At the close of the voting period on 1 
March 2011 the votes were as follows: 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 BSS 


Affirmative votes — 18: Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Halliday, Harvey, Kojima, 
Kottelat, Krell, Lamas, Minelli, Pape, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, 
Winston and Yanega. 

Negative votes — 3: Grygier, Zhang and Zhou. 

Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Kullander and Lim abstained. Alonso-Zarazaga, Ng and 
Pyle were on leave of absence. 

Brothers commented that he voted FOR the proposals in principle, despite some 
perceived shortcomings in their detail. He felt that it was questionable whether 
Article 75.6 was applicable for this case; the issue seemed actually to be the status of 
the name cornutus Temminck as a replacement name and therefore an objective 
synonym of javensis Horsfield, and a request to change that status, followed by the 
designation of an appropriate type specimen for it. Articles 78.1 and 81.1 of the Code 
seemed the most appropriate to invoke. The designation of a ‘neotype’ under such 
circumstances also seemed inappropriate; the specimen involved should rather be 
called the ‘holotype’ since this is the term used by Temminck for his description. Also 
voting FOR, Yanega felt that the case did not thoroughly cover all of the pertinent 
portions of the Code and how they would apply; accordingly, it was not immediately 
obvious, nor easy to appreciate how the Commission should or should not act. He 
felt that ultimately stability would be properly served if the petition were granted. 
Temminck clearly did not intend to describe a new taxon, but did so anyway, and a 
positive decision by the Commission would finally validate this, rectifying the 
discrepancy between Code-compliance and present usage. 

Grygier voted AGAINST, explaining that there is an important point concerning 
name-bearing types of new replacement names for species-group taxa that was not 
clearly made in the case. At present, under Article 72.7, the Tring specimen of 
Podargus javensis 1s the holotype of both that nominal species and P. cornutus, and 
the Paris specimen of P. cornutus is not a name-bearing type. Under this circum- 
stance, bringing the present case under Article 75.6 is appropriate. However, the first 
part of the proposed solution leads to a situation in which Article 75.6 no longer 
applies. If P. cornutus of Temminck is declared to be a new taxon, and not a 
replacement name, then its type series retroactively will have consisted of both 
specimens assigned to that species by Temminck, i.e. two extant syntypes. The second 
part of the proposed solution would thus require naming an extant syntype as a 
neotype, which seems improbable by definition. The second part of the present 
proposals should instead have asked for the restriction of the type series of P. 
cornutus to just the Paris specimen, which would then indeed be the holotype, as 
Cleere et al. (2006) mistakenly claimed. 


Original reference 


The following is the original reference to the name placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 


cornutus, Podargus, Temminck, 1822, in Temminck C.J. & Laugier, M. of Nouveau recueil de 
planches coloriées d’oiseaux, pour servir de suite et de complément aux planches enluminées 
de Buffon. Livraison 27, text for Plate 159. 


156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


OPINION 2276 (Case 3479) 


Cuvieronius Osborn, 1923 (Mammalia, Proboscidea): usage conserved 
by designation of a type species 


Abstract. The generic name Cuvieronius Osborn, 1923, for South American gompho- 
theriid proboscideans, has been conserved by setting aside all previous type species 
fixations and designating Mastotherium hyodon Fischer, 1814 as the type species of 
Cuvieronius and by designating a neotype for that species. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mammalia; Proboscidea; GOMPHOTHERIIDAE; 
Brazil; Cuvieronius; Mastotherium hyodon; Cuvieronius tarijensis; South America; 
Ecuador; Chile. 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary power: 

(a) it is hereby ruled that all previous type species fixations for Cuvieronius 
Osborn, 1923 are set aside and Mastotherium hyodon Fischer, 1814 is 
designated as the type species; 

(b) the Commission hereby sets aside all previous type fixations for Masto- 
therium hyodon Fischer, 1814 and designates the skull and lower jaw from 
Tarija, Bolivia originally described and illustrated by Boule & Thevenin 
(1920, pls. 1-3): MNHN TAR 1270 (Musée National d’Histoire Naturelle, 
Paris) as neotype of Mastotherium hyodon. 

(2) The name Cuvieronius Osborn, 1923 (gender: masculine), type species Masto- 
therium hyodon Fischer, 1814, as ruled in (1)(a) above, is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name hyodon, as published in the binomen Mastotherium hyodon Fischer, 
1814 (specific name of the type species of Cuvieronius Osborn, 1923) as defined 
by the neotype designated in (1)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official List 
of Specific Names in Zoology. 


History of Case 3479 


An application to conserve the generic name Cuvieronius Osborn, 1923, for extinct 
South American gomphothertid proboscideans, by setting aside all previous type 
species fixations and designating Mastotherium hyodon Fischer, 1814 as the type species 
of Cuvieronius and by designating a neotype for that species was received from Spencer 
G. Lucas (New Mexico Museum of Natural History, Albuquerque, NM, U.S.A.) on 15 
October 2008. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 66: 265-270 
(September 2009). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the 
Commission’s website. One comment in support was published in BZN 67: 95-96. 


Decision of the Commission 


On | September 2010 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 66: 267. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
2010 the votes were as follows: 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 157 


Affirmative votes — 19: Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Halliday, Harvey, Kojima, 
Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Lim, Pape, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, van Tol, 
Yanega, Zhang and Zhou. 

Negative votes — 5: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Grygier, Minelli and Winston. 

Stys abstained. Alonso-Zarazaga, Ng and Pyle were on leave of absence. 

Voting FOR Halliday commented that the proposal presented in case 3479 was 
persuasive and should be effective in stabilising the names of the taxa concerned. He 
felt, however, that one further action was needed for a complete solution to the 
problem: the Commission must explicitly set aside the existing holotype of hyodon, 
invoking Article 75.5, before designating specimen number MNHN TAR 1270 as the 
neotype of hyodon. He felt this request should have been included in the Case. 

Voting AGAINST, Bogutskaya suggested that a better solution to the problems 
that surround Cuvieronius that would promote the stability and universality of 
nomenclature was to keep M. humboldtii Fisher, 1814 as the type species of 
Cuvieronius and designate as its neotype the skull and lower jaw from Tarya, Bolivia: 
MNHN TAR 1270 (holotype of C. tarijensis). This would provide the same result, 
but with no replacement of the type species of Cuvieronius. Minelli, voting 
AGAINST, said that fixing the concept of the type species of Cuvieronius Osborn, 
1923 by replacing the poor type material of the oldest nominal taxa involved in the 
case is a sensible choice. However, this does not require setting aside all previous type 
species fixations for Cuvieronius Osborn, 1923, to allow designating Mastotherium 
hyodon Fischer, 1814, as the type species. A simpler solution, not affecting the 
original type species fixation, would be to fix the specimen from Tarya MNHN TAR 
1270 as neotype of Mastotherium humboldtii Fischer, 1814. Also voting AGAINST, 
Grygier advocated that if there was any possibility of obtaining and matching 
fragmentary gene sequences from the holotype tooth of hyodon Fischer and well- 
characterised fossils of Cuvieronius and Haplomastodon, we should wait for such 
data. If not, this unidentifiable-to-taxonomic-genus tooth was the main thing needing 
resolution. Two ways were available to accomplish this, both with problems. The 
current proposal represented one approach. However, the long-term preponderant 
usage of hyodon and the acceptance of Cabrera’s invalid type-species designation 
have evidently occurred in relatively few works (only about 30 are cited, by relatively 
few authors), and the proposed type locality is distant from the original type locality. 
Another possible solution, which he slightly favoured because it did not involve 
endorsement of earlier repeated mistakes, was conditional suppression of humboldtii 
Fischer and hyodon in favour of the currently best-understood name farijensis 
Ficcarelli et al., designation of the latter as the type species of Cuvieronius, and full 
suppression of andium Cuvier, 1824 (humboldtii Cuvier, 1824, being invalid as both 
an objective junior synonym and secondary junior homonym of humboldtii Fischer, 
1814 does not require suppression). Grygier said that designating tarijensis as the type 
might be regarded as one step too far, but in both solutions the same individual, 
whether it be called the holotype of tarijensis or the neotype of hyodon, would become 
central to the concept of the genus. As an aside, there is an inconsistency concerning 
the original locality of Cuvier’s humboldtii: paragraph 1 states that it was from Chile, 
but paragraph 8 says the type specimen was from ‘either Chile or Ecuador near 
Concepcion’. While there is a city called Concepcion in Chile, there is apparently no 
such municipality in Ecuador. Also, the Case was brought under Articles 68 and 75, 


158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 


but it should have been brought under Articles 75.5 and 81.1; Article 68 does not 
require anything to be referred to the Commission. 

Stys ABSTAINED, with the criticism that he felt the Case was poorly presented, 
with many irrelevant details, the present taxonomic situations not clearly outlined, 
and that the reader was not unambiguously told what would happen if all the 
illegitimate nomenclatural actions would be simply ignored (as they should have 
been). 


Original references 


The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 


Cuvieronius Osborn, 1923, American Museum Novitates, 99: 1. 
hyodon, Mastotherium, Fischer von Waldheim, 1814, Zoognosia Tabulis synopticis illustrata, 
vol. 3, p. 341. 


Contents — continued 


OPINION 2275 (Case 3491). Podargus cornutus Temminck, 1822 (currently Batra- 
chostomus cornutus; Aves, PODARGIDAE): specific name conserved by designation of 
a neotype i: 154 
OPINION 2276 (Case 3479). Caviavonias Hidionn, 1923 (Mammalia, Proboscidea): 
usage conserved by designation of a type species. . . . 156 


ewe 


SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES 


INNIAICMTA 


: z SS ee 2 
ee 2B 


S 


eens 


es 


. 
ee 
oes 


es ae 


se 


ie 
Bh, sean, ae 


sees 


esi wastttontosn 
Oe SORES 
ee es 


eochelo 


TESS CURE 
LO aaa 


EE 
POLO 


CNS 
ie 


Pe Breit 
ea 


tp Cea 


OOK 


is j ee 


‘ease 


ses 


Volume 68, Part 3, 30 September 2011, pp. 159-238 ISSN 0007-5167 


he Bulletin of 


The Official Periodical 


of the International Commission 
~on Zoological Nomenclature 


; 


THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a registered charity 
(no. 211944) based in the U.K. The annual subscription for 2012 is £210 or US$360 or €295, 
postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a subscription of £105 or 
US$180 or €145. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: 

The Executive Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

Natural History Museum 

Cromwell Road 

London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. +44 207 942 5653; e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) 

Electronic communication is preferred. Manuscripts sent by post should include a digital 

copy of the text and figures. 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


Officers 
President Dr J. van Tol (The Netherlands) 
Vice-President Prof. D. G. Fautin (U.S. A.) 
Executive Secretary Dr E. Michel (U.K. ) 
Councillors indicated below with * 
Members 
Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga* Prof. S. Lim (Malaysia; Parasitology) 
(Spain; Coleoptera) Prof. A. Minelli (/taly; Myriapoda) 
Dr A. Ballerio (/taly; Coleoptera) Prof. P. K. L. Ng (Singapore; 
Dr N. G. Bogutskaya (Russia; Ichthyology) Crustacea, Ichthyology) 
Prof. P. Bouchet* (France; Mollusca) Dr T. Pape (Denmark; Diptera) 
Prof. D. J. Brothers Dr L. Papp (Hungary, Diptera) 
(South Africa; Hymenoptera) Prof. D. J. Patterson (U.S.A.; Protista) 
Prof. D. G. Fautin (U.S.A.; Cnidaria) Dr R. Pyle* (U.S.A.; Ichthyology) 
Dr M. J. Grygier (Japan; Crustacea) Dr G. Rosenberg* (U.S. A.; Mollusca) 
Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) Prof. P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) 
Dr M. S. Harvey (Australia; Arachnida) Dr J. van Tol (The Netherlands; Odonata) 
Prof. J. Kojima (Japan; Hymenoptera) Dr J. E. Winston (U.S. A.; Bryozoa) 
Dr M. Kottelat (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Dr D. Yanega (U.S. A.; Entomology) 
Dr F.-T. Krell (U.S.A.; Coleoptera) Dr Z.-Q. Zhang (New Zealand; Acari) 


Dr S. O. Kullander (Sweden; Ichthyology) Prof. H. Zhou (China; Coleoptera) 
Prof. Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera) 
Secretariat 


Dr E. Michel (Executive Secretary and Bulletin Editor-in-Chief) 
Dr S. Nikolaeva (Bulletin Zoologist and Scientific Editor) 

S. Tracey (Bulletin Zoologist and Scientific Administrator) 

N. Dale-Skey Papilloud M.Sc. (Bulletin Zoologist) 

E. W. Baker (Webmaster and Development Officer ) 


Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 
Dr M. Dixon (Chairman) 
C. Laws (Treasurer and Managing Director) 


Abstracts of Applications and Opinions, Comments in full and details of the names published 
in the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology are posted on the 
Commission’s website (http://iczn.org) 


Cover image: Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa (Linnaeus, 1758), the European mole cricket (Latin: 
gryllus — cricket, talpa — mole, from its fossorial limbs, fine hairs and subterranean habit). 
Widespread in the Western Palaearctic region and introduced into parts of the U.S.A. this 
insect can be an agricultural pest in significant numbers, although in the U.K. it is extremely 
rare and subject to a U.K. Biodiversity Action Plan (report sightings to g.beccaloni@ 
nhm.ac.uk). Detail from plate 456 of British Entomology. Original Drawings, vol. 10, by John 
Curtis (1862) (© Natural History Museum, London). 


© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2011 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 159 


BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


NOV UY 71] 
LIBRARIES 


Volume 68, part 3 (pp. 159-238) 30 September 


Notices 


(1) Applications and correspondence relating to applications to the Commission 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given on the inside of the 
front cover and on the Commission website. English is the official language of the 
Bulletin. Please take careful note of instructions to authors (present in a one or two 
page form in each volume and available online (at http://Aiczn.org/content/guidelines- 
case-preparation) as incorrectly formatted applications will be returned to authors 
for revision. The Commission’s Secretariat will answer general nomenclatural (as 
opposed to purely taxonomic) enquiries and assist with the formulation of applica- 
tions and, as far as it can, check the main nomenclatural references in applications. 
Correspondence should be sent by e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ where possible. 

(2) The Commission votes on applications eight months after they have been 
published, although this period is normally extended to enable comments to be 
submitted. Comments for publication relating to applications (either in support or 
against, or offering alternative solutions) should be submitted as soon as possible. 
Comments may be edited (see instructions for submission of comments at 
http://iczn.org/content/instructions-comments). 

(3) Requests for help and advice on the Code can be made direct to the 
Commission and other interested parties via the Internet. Membership of the 
Commission’s Discussion List is free of charge. You can subscribe and find out more 
about the list at http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list. 

(4) The Commission also welcomes the submission of general-interest articles on 
nomenclatural themes or nomenclatural notes on particular issues. These may deal 
with taxonomy, but should be mainly nomenclatural in content. Articles and notes 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary. 


New applications to the Commission 


The following new applications have been received since the last issue of the 
Bulletin (volume 68, part 2, 30 June 2011) went to press. Under Article 82 of 
the Code, the existing usage of names in the applications is to be maintained until the 
Commission’s rulings on the applications (the Opinions) have been published. 

CASE 3567: Bulimus lineatus Bruguiére, 1789 (currently Macroceramus lineatus; 
Gastropoda, UROCoPTIDAE) and Bulimus lineatus Draparnaud, 1801 (currently Acicula 
lineata; Gastropoda, ACICULIDAE): proposed conservation of both specific names. 
F.W. Welter-Schultes. 

CASE 3568: Stirpulina Stoliczka, 1870 (Bivalvia, CLAVAGELLIDAE): proposed conser- 
vation by suppression of 7ubolana Bivona Bernardi, 1832. M.E.Y. Low & S.K. Tan. 


160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


CASE 3569: Limax fasciatus Razoumowsky, 1789 (Gastropoda, LIMACIDAE) and 
Limax fasciatus Nilsson, 1823 (currently Arion fasciatus; Gastropoda, ARIONIDAE): 
proposed conservation of both specific names. T. von Proschwitz & G. Falkner. 

CASE 3570: Curculio scirpi Fabricius, 1792 (Insecta, Coleoptera, CIRCULIONOIDEA, 
ERIRHINIDAE): proposed precedence over Curculio rhamni Herbst, 1784 and C. scirpi 
Rossi, 1790. R. Caldara, H. Winkelmann & M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga. 

CASE 3571: Crotalinus catenatus Rafinesque, 1818 and Crotalus tergeminus Say, 
1822 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation of usage by designation of 
neotypes. B.I. Crother, J.M. Savage & A.T. Holycross. 

CASE 3572: PSITTACULINAE Vigors, 1825 (Aves): proposed conservation of usage. 
R. Schodde, L. Joseph & W.J. Bock. 

CASE 3573: Papilio narcissus Fabricius (currently Heteropsis narcissus; Lepidop- 
tera, NYMPHALIDAE) and Papilio narcissus Fabricius, 1775 (currently Hypochrysops; 
Lepidoptera, LYCAENIDAE): request for a ruling to resolve homonymy. E. Balletto & 
D..C..dvees, 

CASE 3574: Cereus Itmoni, 1830 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): proposed designation of a 
new type species. D.G. Fautin, R.B. Williams & T. Molodtsova. 

CASE 3575: Haltica undulata Kutschera, 1860 (currently Phyllotreta undulata; 
Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence over Haltica bivittata Waterhouse, 1838 
(currently Phyllotreta bivittata). C. Reid, R. Booth & M. Doberl. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 161 


Charles Davies Sherborn 


ANCHORING BIODIVERSITY INFORMATION: 
FROM SHERBORN TO THE 21ST CENTURY AND BEYOND 


Charles Davies Sherborn (1861-1942) 
provided the bibliographic foundation 
for current zoological nomenclature with 
his magnum opus /ndex Animalium. \n 
the 43 years he spent working on this ex- 
traordinary 11 volume, 9,000 page re- 
source, he anchored our understanding 
of animal diversity through the 
published scientific record. No work has 
equalled it since, and it remains in cur- 
rent and critical use. 


A symposium celebrating Sherborn’s life 
and legacy will be held at the Natural 
History Museum on 28 October 2011, with 
an international panel of experts on 
bibliography and biodiversity informat- 
ics, linking a view of the past with an 
active debate on the future of these eee ee 
related fields. Sherborn’s personal bookplate 


Flett Theatre, Natural History Museum, London 
(Exhibition Road entrance) 


28 October 2011 


contact Gina Douglas at meetings@shnh.org.uk 


www.iczn.org or www.shnh.org.uk 


NATURAL 
HISTORY 


162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


Coral taxon names published in ‘Corals of the world’ by J.E.N. Veron 
(2000): potential availability confirmed under Article 86.1.2 


The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature received a request from 
J.E.N. Veron to rule upon the availability of 103 species names, one generic name and 
one family name. 

In a monographic work on the taxonomy of scleractinian corals, Veron (2000) 
proposed many new names for taxa at the species-group (103 names), genus-group 
(two names), and family-group (one name) levels, in some cases without meeting all 
the new requirements for availability that went into effect when the fourth edition of 
the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature came into force on 1 January 
2000. In particular, the descriptions of new species did not explicitly fix a holotype or 
syntypes as required by Articles 16.4.1 and 72.3. As a result, it has been contended 
that the majority, if not all, of these names are nomenclaturally unavailable as of 
this work, with resulting taxonomic uncertainty among zoologists. To remedy this 
situation, Dr Veron presented testimonial and documentary evidence to the Commis- 
sion that he submitted the manuscript for publication in December 1999. 

In accordance with Article 86.1.2 of the Code, the Commission was asked to 
confirm that these names are not to be set aside on the grounds that they do not 
comply with the changed provisions of the fourth edition of the Code published in 
1999 and that each of these names is potentially available as of Veron (2000), 
provided that it meets the other provisions of the Code (i.e. Articles 10—20) related to 
availability. 

Under the one-month rule, the Commission voted on Veron’s request. Twenty- 
four votes were received, all FOR the request. 

It should be noted that this action validates the work but not the names per se 
within. It is simply a verification that the names should not be set aside provided that 
they meet the provisions of the third edition of the Code published in, in particular, 
but not limited to, Articles 10-20. The names at issue are provided in the list below, 
prepared by the ICZN Secretariat and modified from the Hexacorallians of the 
World website, http://hercules.kgs.ku.edu/hexacoral/anemone2/index.cfm as a con- 
venience. However, this is not validation of taxonomic units (which is not in the 
purview of the Commission) nor is it a publication of a List of Available Names 
(LAN). The Commission has not ruled that these names are individually available 
and the list is thus not authoritative. It remains for subsequent workers to confirm 
availability of each name. 


Ostensibly new taxa described in J.E.N. Veron (2000) ‘Corals of the world’ 


Notes 

1. Misspellings have been corrected. 

2. Where required, spellings of specific names have been corrected to meet the 
provisions of the Code regarding gender agreement. 

Additional notes on gender agreement: 

e Porites — masculine (as in Opinion 2061). 

e Favites— masculine (Article 30.1.4.4. A compound genus-group name ending in 

the suffix -ites, -oides, -ides, -odes, or -istes is to be treated as masculine unless 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 163 


its author, when establishing the name, stated that it had another gender or 
treated it as such by combining it with an adjectival species-group name in 
another gender form). The first included species in Favites Link, 1807 was F- 
astrinus Link, 1807. 
e The specific name napopora is treated as a noun in apposition. 
3. Species are listed under their original genus, even if later workers have moved 
them to other genera. 


Specific names 


. Acanthastrea faviaformis Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 24) 

. Acanthastrea regularis Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 16) 

. Acanthastrea subechinata Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 13) 

. Acropora cylindrica Veron & Fenner in Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 293) 
. Acropora elizabethensis Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 188) 

. Acropora fenneri Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 416) 

. Acropora filiformis Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 418) 

. Acropora gomezi Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 408) 

. Acropora japonica Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 330) 

. Acropora lamarcki Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 376) 

. Acropora maryae Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 392) 

. Acropora minuta Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 210) 

. Acropora navini Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 431) 

. Acropora parahemprichii Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 274) 

. Acropora parapharaonis Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 367) 

. Acropora pectinata Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 264; misspelled there as Acropora 


pectinatus) 


. Acropora proximalis Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 278) 
. Acropora rufa Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 269; misspelled there as Acropora 


rufus) 


. Acropora torresiana Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 316) 

. Alveopora minuta Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 396) 

. Anacropora pillai Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 175) 

. Anacropora spumosa Veron, Turak & DeVantier in Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, 


p. 171) 


. Cycloseris colini Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 247) 
. Cyphastrea hexasepta Veron, Turak & DeVantier in Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, 


p. 245) 


. Echinophyllia costata Fenner & Veron in Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 330) 
. Echinophyllia pectinata Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 331) 
. Echinopora irregularis Veron, Turak & DeVantier in Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, 


p. 262) 


. Echinopora robusta Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 263) 
. Echinopora tiranensis Veron, Turak & DeVantier in Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, 


p. 265) 


. Echinophyllia taylorae Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 327) (the species Echino- 


pora taylorae was erroneously described by Veron (2000) in the genus 


164 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


Echinophyllia. Veron (2002) published the following statement ‘In the original 
description, this species was erroneously placed in genus Echinophyllia’). 


. Favia albida Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 112; misspelled there as Favia albidus) 

. Favia lacuna Veron, Turak & DeVantier in Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 111) 

. Favia marshae Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 122) 

. Favia rosaria Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 119) 

. Favia truncata Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 113; misspelled there as Favia truncatus) 
. Favia vietnamensis Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 127) 

. Favites bestae Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 140) 

. Favites micropentagonus Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 137; misspelled there as 


Favites micropentagona) 


. Favites paraflexuosus Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 155; misspelled there as Favites 


paraflexuosa) 


. Fungia puishani Veron & DeVantier in Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 277) 

. Galaxea acrhelia Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 115) 

. Galaxea cryptoramosa Fenner & Veron in Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 114) 

. Galaxea longisepta Fenner & Veron in Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 116) 

. Goniastrea minuta Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 158) 

. Goniastrea ramosa Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 160) 

. Goniastrea thecata Veron, DeVantier & Turak in Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, 


p. 169) 


. Goniopora albicona Veron, DeVantier & Turak in Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, 


p. 361) 


. Goniopora ciliata Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 327) 
. Goniopora pearsoni Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 365) 
. Goniopora sultani Veron, DeVantier & Turak in Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, 


p. 355) 


. Halomitra meierae Veron & Maragos in Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 300) 

. Leptastrea aequalis Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 235) 

. Leptoseris striata Fenner & Veron in Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 212) 

. Lobophyllia dentata Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 46; misspelled there as Lobophyllia 


dentatus) 


. Lobophyllia flabelliformis Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 48) 
. Lobophyllia serrata Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 41; misspelled there as Lobophyllia 


serratus) 


. Micromussa diminuta Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 9) 
. Montastraea colemani Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 219; misspelled there as 


Montastrea colemani) 


. Montastraea serageldini Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 213; misspelled there as 


Montastrea serageldini) 


. Montipora aspergilla Veron, DeVantier & Turak in Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, 


p. 167) 


. Montipora crypta Turak, DeVantier & Veron in Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 126) 
. Montipora delicatula Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 70) 

. Montipora echinata Veron, DeVantier & Turak in Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 166) 
. Montipora hemispherica Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 147) 

. Montipora hodgsoni Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 72) 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 165 


. Montipora kellyi Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 164) 
. Montipora niugini Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 158) 
. Montipora pachytuberculata Veron, DeVantier & Turak in Veron, 2000 


(vol. 1, p. 166) 


. Montipora palawanensis Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 132) 

. Montipora porites Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 162) 

. Montipora saudii Turak, DeVantier & Veron in Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 92) 
. Montipora taiwanensis Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 132) 

. Montipora verruculosa Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 136; misspelled there as 


Montipora verruculosus) 


. Montipora vietnamensis Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 127) 

. Mycedium steeni Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 347) 

. Mycedium umbra Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 342) 

. Oxypora convoluta Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 340) 

. Oxypora egyptensis Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 341) 

. Parasimplastrea sheppardi Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 230) 


. Pectinia africana Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 353; misspelled there as Pectinia 
africanus) 

. Pectinia pygmaea Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 361; misspelled there as Pectinia 
pygmaeus) 

. Platygyra acuta Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 190) 

. Platygyra carnosa Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 184; misspelled there as Platygyra 
carnosus) 

. Plerogyra disca Veron & Fenner in Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 86) 


. Plesiastrea devantieri Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 228) 


. Pocillopora effusa Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 39; misspelled there as Pocillopora 
effusus) 
. Pocillopora fungiformis Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 40) 


. Pocillopora indiania Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 37) 

. Pocillopora kelleheri Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 32) 

. Pocillopora zelli Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 36) 

. Podabacia lankaensis Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 315) 

. Podabacia sinai Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 314) 

. Porites desilveri Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 308) 

. Porites flavus Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 341) 

. Porites harrisoni Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 343) 

. Porites napopora Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 318) 

. Porites rugosus Fenner & Veron in Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 342; misspelled 


there as Porites rugosa) 


. Porites tuberculosus Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 331; misspelled there as Porites 


tuberculosa) 


. Poritipora paliformis Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 347) 
. Sandalolitha africana Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 299) 
. Seriatopora dendritica Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 46) 


. Seriatopora guttata Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 50; misspelled there as Seriatopora 
guttatus) 
. Stylophora madagascarensis Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 57) 


166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


Generic names 
1. Poritipora Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 347) (type species Poritipora paliformis Veron, 
2000 by monotypy) (This name appears to meet all the conditions for avail- 
ability under the fourth edition of the Code without recourse to Article 86.1.2.) 
2. Micromussa Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 8) (type species Acanthastrea amakusensis 
Veron, 1990 by original designation) 


Family names 


EUPHYLLIDAE Veron, 2000, vol. 2, p. 67 (type genus Euphyllia Dana, 1846 by original 
designation). This name, presented by Veron as a new family, is evidently merely an 
erroneous subsequent spelling of EUPHYLLIIDAE Milne Edwards, 1857, proposed 
originally as EUPHYLLIACEAE at the lower family-level rank of ‘agéle’. Under the 
Principle of Coordination (Article 36.1), EUPHYLLIIDAE Milne Edwards, 1857 is thus 
the correct attribution and spelling, and neither EUPHYLLIDAE, nor its emendation 
EUPHYLLIDAE sensu Veron (2002), has any separate availability. 


References 


Milne Edwards, H. 1857. Histoire naturelle des Coralliaires ou Polypes proprement dits, vol. 2. 
633 pp. Librairie Encyclopédique de Roret, Paris. 

Veron, J.E.N. 2000. Corals of the world, vols. 1-3. 1410 pp. Australian Institute of Marine 
Science, Townsville, Australia. 

Veron, J.E.N. 2002. New species described in Corals of the World. Australian Institute of 
Marine Science Monograph Series, 11: 1—206. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 167 


Case 3540 


AMPHIPORIDAE Rukhin, 1938 (Porifera, Stromatoporata, Amphiporida): 
proposed emendation to AMPHIPORAIDAE to remove homonymy with 
AMPHIPORIDAE McIntosh, 1873 (Nemertea, Hoplonemertea) 


Hiiseyin Ozdikmen 


Gazi University, Science & Arts Faculty, Department of Biology, 06500 
Ankara, Turkey (e-mail: ozdikmen@gazi.edu.tr) 


Hakan Demir 


Gazi University, Science & Arts Faculty, Department of Biology, 06500 
Ankara, Turkey (e-mail: ozyptila@gmail.com) 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 29 and 55.3 of the Code, is 
to emend the spelling of the family-group name AMPHIPORIDAE Rukhin, 1938 
(Porifera, Stromatoporata, Amphiporida), a junior homonym of AMPHIPORIDAE 
McIntosh, 1873 (Nemertea, Hoplonemertea) thereby removing the homonymy 
between the two names. It is proposed that the stem of the generic name Amphipora 
Schulz, 1883, on which the stromatoporoid name is based, be emended to Amphipora- 
to give AMPHIPORAIDAE, while leaving the nemertean family-group name (based on 
Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831) unchanged. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Nemertea; Enopla; Hoplonemertea; AMPHIPORI- 
DAE; Amphiporus; Porifera; Stromatoporata; Amphiporida; AMPHIPORAIDAE; Amphi- 
pora; nemerteans; stromatoporoids; Silurian; Devonian; European seas; cosmopoli- 
tan. 


1. Family-group names based on the stem Amphipor- (Greek ‘amphi’? meaning 
around, on both sides and Greek ‘poros’ ‘narrow passage, strait’; the latter latinised 
to ‘porus’ with the sense of ‘channel in the body’) are in use in the order 
Hoplonemertea (Nemertea, Enopla) as AMPHIPORIDAE McIntosh, 1873 and in the 
order Amphiporida (Porifera, Stromatoporata) as AMPHIPORIDAE Rukhin, 1938. 
However, the homonymy between these family-group names has never been resolved. 
The homonymy between the two family-group names results from similarity of the 
names of their type genera. In accordance with Article 55.3 of the Code this case is 
referred to the Commission. 

2. The family-group name AMPHIPORIDAE was initially introduced by McIntosh 
(1873, p. 134) for Nemertea, with the type genus Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831 (p. 63). 
According to Gibbon & Crandall (1991), the genus Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831 was 
originally established with one included species, A. albicans Ehrenberg, 1831. They 
argued that A. albicans Ehrenberg, 1831 should be regarded as a nomen nudum. 
Therefore, they referred the case to the Commission and proposed to designate the 
species Planaria lactiflorea Johnston, 1828 as type species of the genus Amphiporus. 
The generic name Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831 with the type species Planaria 


168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


lactiflorea Johnston, 1828 is listed in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 
(Opinion 1675, BZN 49: 157, June 1992). At present this genus includes many species 
(Gibson, 2001) from the European seas. The family name AMPHIPORIDAE is in 
widespread use as a valid name in the order Hoplonemertea and includes at least 
twenty-six genera. 

3. Rukhin (1938, p. 42) proposed a family name (with the type genus Amphipora 
Schulz, 1883 (p. 245)) for Silurian-Devonian stromatoporoids (Porifera). The genus 
Amphipora Schulz, 1883, the type species of which is Caunopora ramosa Phillips, 1841 
(p. 19), is used as a valid generic name. It contains about 20 species (Stearn et al., 
1999). The family name AMPHIPORIDAE is also currently used as a valid name in the 
order Amphiporida (Porifera, Stromatoporata). According to Stearn et al. (1999), the 
family AMPHIPORIDAE Rukhin, 1938 contains five genera. 

4. Of the two homonymous family-group names discussed above, the senior name 
AMPHIPORIDAE McIntosh, 1873 in the order Hoplonemertea has been in widespread 
use (e.g. Clarke & Johnston, 2003; Gibson, 2001, 2009) and it seems advisable to 
continue using this name as valid. 

5. AMPHIPORIDAE Rukhin, 1938 in the order Amphiporida (Porifera, Stromato- 
porata) is also in use, with no known synonyms (Stearn et al., 1999). Considering 
that the nemertean name Amphiporus is in widespread use and on the Official List it 
is proposed that the stem of the poriferan type genus be emended to remove the 
homonymy. The family-group names are based on the identical stem Amphipor- and 
it is proposed that this homonymy be removed by using the entire generic name 
Amphipora as the stem for the formation of the stromatoporoid family name, leaving 
the nemertean name unaltered. 

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary power to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code 

the stem of the generic name Amphipora Schulz, 1883 is Amphipora-; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Amphipora 

Schulz, 1883 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Cauno- 
pora ramosa Phillips, 1841; 
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name ramosa 
Phillips, 1841, as published in the binomen Caunopora ramosa (specific name 
of the type species of Amphipora Schulz, 1883); 
(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following 
names: 
(a) AMPHIPORIDAE McIntosh, 1873, type genus Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831 
(Nemertea); 
(b) AMPHIPORAIDAE Rukhin, 1938, type genus Amphipora Schulz, 1883 (spelling 
emended by the ruling in (1) above) (Porifera); 

(5) to place on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in 

Zoology the name AMPHIPORIDAE Rukhin, 1938 (type genus Amphipora Schulz, 
1883) (Porifera). 


References 


Clarke, A. & Johnston, N.M. 2003. Antarctic marine benthic diversity. Oceanography and 
Marine Biology: An Annual Review, 41: 47-114. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 169 


Ehrenberg, C.G. 1828-1831. Phytozoa turbellaria Africana et Asiatica in Phytozoorum Tabula 
IV et V delineata. Pp. 53-67 in Hemprich, P.C. & Ehrenberg, C.G. (Eds.), Symbolae 
Physicae, seu icones et descriptiones Corporum Naturalium novorum ... Pars Zoologica. 
Animalia evertebrata exclusis insectis. 126 pp. Plates published in 1828, text in 1831. 

Gibson, R. 2001. Nemertini (Nemertae), in Costello, M.J. (Ed.), European register of marine 
species: a check-list of the marine species in Europe and a bibliography of guides to their 
identification. Collection Patrimoines Naturels, 50: 152-156. 

Gibson, R. 2009. Amphiporidae. Jn Gibson, R. (Ed.), World Nemertina database. Accessed 
through: World Register of Marine Species at  http://www.marinespecies.org/ 
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=122323 (Accessed 21 July, 2011). 

Gibson, R. & Crandall, F.B. 1991. Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831 (Nemertea): proposed 
designation of Planaria lactiflorea Johnston, 1828 as the type species. Bulletin of 
Zoological Nomenclature, 48(1): 22-23. 

McIntosh, W.C. 1873-1874. A monograph of the British annelids. Part I (1873). The 
nemerteans. Pp. i—xiil, 1-96, Part 1 continued (1874). Pp. 97—213d, The Ray Society, 
London. 

Phillips, J. 1841. Figures and descriptions of the Paleozoic fossils of Cornwall, Devon, and West 
Somerset observed in the course of the Ordinance Geological Survey of that district. 
Pp. 1-231. Longman, Brown, Green & Longmans, London. 

Rukhin, L.B. 1938. Nizhnepaleozoiskie korally i Stromatoporoidei verkhnei chasti basseina R. 
Kolymy [The Lower Paleozoic corals and Stromatoporoides of the upper part of the 
Kolyma River]. Gostrest Dal’stroya. Materiyaly po tizucheniyu Kolymsko-Indigirskogo 
kraya. Ser. 2. Geologiya in geomorphologiya, vyp. 10 [Contributions to the knowledge of the 
Kolyma-Indigirka Land. Series 2, Geology and Geomorphology], vol. 10. 119 pp. Moscow 
& Leningrad. 

Schulz, E. 1883. Die Eifelkalkmulde von Hillesheim, Nebst einem palaeontologischen Anhang. 
Jahrbuch der Kéniglich Preussischen Geologischen Landesanstalt (und Bergakademie) zu 
Berlin ftir 1882: 158-250. 

Stearn, C.W., Webby, B.D., Nestor, H. & Stock, C.W. 1999. Revised classification and 
terminology of Palaeozoic stromatoporoids. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 44(1): 1-70. 

Webby, B.D., Stearn, C.W. & Zhen, Y.Y. 1993. Lower Devonian (Pragian-Emsian) stromato- 
poroids from Victoria. Royal Society of Victoria, Proceedings, 105: 113-186. 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 270. 
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 


should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


Case 3553 


Helix atlantica Morelet & Drouét, 1857 (currently Oxychilus 
(Drouetia) atlanticus; Gastropoda, Pulmonata): proposed conservation 
of current usage by designation of a neotype 


Antonio M. de Frias Martins 


CIBIO-Acores — Centre for Research on Biodiversity and Genetic Resources, 
Department of Biology, University of the Azores, 9501-801 Ponta Delgada, 
Acores, Portugal (e-mail: frias@uac.pt) 


Luis Silva 


CIBIO-Acores — Centre for Research on Biodiversity and Genetic Resources, 
Department of Biology, University of the Azores, 9501-801 Ponta Delgada, 
Acores, Portugal (e-mail: Isilva@uac.pt) 


Kurt Jordaens 


Royal Museum for Central Africa, Leuvensesteenweg 13, B-3080 Tervuren, 
Belgium & Department of Biology, Evolutionary Ecology Group, University 
of Antwerp, Groenenborgerlaan 171, B-2020 Antwerp, Belgium 

(e-mail: kurt.jordaens@ua.ac.be) 


Thierry Backeljau 


Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Vautierstraat 29, B-1000 
Brussels, Belgium & Department of Biology, Evolutionary Ecology Group, 
University of Antwerp, Groenenborgerlaan 171, B-2020 Antwerp, Belgium 
(e-mail: thierry.backeljau@naturalsciences.be) 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 75.6 of the Code, is to 
conserve the current usage of the name Helix atlantica Morelet & Drouét, 1857 
(currently Oxychilus (Drouetia) atlanticus) for a species of pulmonate gastropod by 
designating a neotype. The syntypes of this species housed in the Natural History 
Museum, London are not in taxonomic accord with the prevailing usage. Originally 
H. atlantica was said to occur in most islands of the archipelago of the Azores, but 
later this name was uniformly used for specimens from Sao Miguel Island only, while 
the syntypes are from Santa Maria Island. We request the Commission use its plenary 
power to set aside the existing name-bearing types and to designate a neotype from 
Sao Miguel Island, to conserve the prevailing usage and concept of the species. 


Keywords: Nomenclature; taxonomy; Helix; Helix atlantica; Oxychilus atlanticus; 
pulmonate gastropods; Azores. 


1. Morelet & Drouét (1857) briefly described 12 species of land molluscs collected 
during their expedition to the Azores without providing occurrence data, which were 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 171 


added later by Morelet (1860). Morelet (1860, p. 168) stated that although Helix 
atlantica Morelet & Drouét, 1857 occurs on most islands of the archipelago, it is 
particularly abundant in Sao Miguel. Moreover, Morelet & Drouét (1857, p. 149) 
mentioned in the description a size of 8 mm, but Morelet (1860, p. 169) observed that 
the specimens of H. atlantica from Santa Maria (12 mm) and Faial (6 mm) differed 
somewhat from those of Sao Miguel. 

2. More than a century later, Riedel (1964) used anatomical evidence from 
specimens collected by the Lund Expedition to the Azores in 1957 to corroborate 
and formalise Morelet’s (1860) claims, by regarding the populations of H. atlantica 
from Faial and some from Santa Maria as subspecies of the typical form of the 
species from Sao Miguel. Riedel (1964, p. 31) raised Morelet’s (1860, p. 168) variety 
8 minor from Faial to subspecific status maintaining Morelet’s (1860) authorship. 
However, from specimens of a smaller size (7 mm) than that given by Morelet & 
Drouét (1857) for the type of Helix atlantica, Riedel (1964, p. 34) described a new 
subspecies for Santa Maria, viz. Oxychilus atlanticus brincki, suggesting the 
possibility that the 12 mm specimens mentioned by Morelet (1860, p. 169) could 
belong to a new form. The holotype of O. a. brincki is deposited at the Institute of 
Zoology of the Lund University, Sweden (Riedel, 1964, p. 7). Finally, Riedel (1980) 
emphasised the separation of these subspecific taxa by raising them to specific level, 
a decision that since then has been consistently applied (e.g. Martins, 1989, 1991, 
1999, 2005; Martins et al., 1991, 2006; Brito, 1992; Cunha et al., 1993, 2001, 2005, 
2010; Rodrigues et al., 1998, 2002, 2003; Rodrigues & Gomez, 1999; Gomez & 
Rodrigues, 2000; Bank et al., 2002; Rodrigues & Martins, 2003; Cameron et al., 
2007). 

3. This taxonomic practice, however, entails a nomenclatural problem, as the three 
specimens labelled syntypes of ‘Helix atlantica’ from Morelet’s collection deposited 
at the Natural History Museum, London (BMNH 93.2.4.996-8) are from Santa 
Maria. Inspection of this material revealed that one of these specimens corresponds 
to Oxychilus (Drouetia) brincki Riedel, 1964, while the other two belong to an 
undescribed species. Riedel (1964) did not consider these syntypes. Because the 
specimens he had at hand were much smaller (7 mm) than the variety mentioned by 
Morelet (1860) (12 mm), he assumed that the latter could belong to another form, 
and proceeded to select a holotype for Oxychilus (Drouetia) atlanticus brincki from 
the material collected by the Lund Expedition in 1957 (Riedel, 1964, pp. 27-34). 
Obviously, by this action and by explicitly restricting the type locality of Helix 
atlantica to Sao Miguel [‘Terra typica: Azoren (Insel Sao Miguel, restr.)’], while 
regarding the Santa Maria populations as a different species, Riedel (1964, 1980) 
introduced a nomenclatural problem, as all existing syntypes of ‘Helix atlantica 
Morelet & Drouét, 1857’ came from Santa Maria. De Winter (1989) recognised the 
variability of the taxon in Sao Miguel by describing Oxychilus (Drouetia) batalhanus 
and subsequent research (Martins, 1991, 2005; Martins et al., 2010) has shown that 
Drouetia in Sao Miguel is a complex of several anatomically closely related 
taxonomic units. Use of the Principle of Priority to relegate de Winter’s name to 
synonymy is not justifiable, for there are other taxonomic units involved in O. (D. ) 
atlanticus. The designation of a neotype for Helix atlantica linking the name to one 
of these taxonomic units is, therefore, needed to fix the true identity of the taxon. The 
proper identification of these endemic taxonomic units throughout the island, 


iz Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


Fig. 1. Neotype of Helix atlantica Morelet & Drouét, 1857. Collected at Lagoa Verde, Sete Cidades, Sao 
Miguel, Acores, Portugal; 11-11-2010; AM de Frias Martins coll. Deposited at the Natural History 
Museum, London (NHMUK 20100653). Scale bar = 1 mm. 


sometimes confined to small areas, will impact on the development of conservation 
policies, thus reinforcing the need to designate appropriate type material. 

4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 

asked: 

(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for Helix 
atlantica Morelet & Drouét, 1857 and to designate specimen NHMUK 
20100653, deposited at the Natural History Museum, London as the neotype; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name atlantica 
Morelet & Drouét, 1857, as published in the binomen Helix atlantica and as 
defined by the neotype designated in (1) above. 


References 


Bank, R.A., Groh, K. & Ripken, T.E.J. 2002. Catalogue and bibliography of the non-marine 
Mollusca of Macaronesia. Pp. 89-235 in Falkner, G., Groh, K. & Speight, M.C.D. (Eds.), 
Collectanea Malacologica. ConchBooks/Friedrich-Held-Gesellschaft, Hackenheim. 

Brito, C.P. 1992. Electrophoretic results of a biochemical systematic survey of Oxychilus 
(Drouetia) atlanticus and some other Zonitidae (Gastropoda: Zonitidae) in S. Miguel, 
Azores. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 46: 145-151. 

Cameron, R.A.D., Cunha, R.M.T da & Martins, A.M.F. 2007. Chance and necessity: land snail 
faunas of Sao Miguel, Acores, compared with those of Madeira. Journal of Molluscan 
Studies, 13, Ll—21 

Cunha, R., Rodrigues, P. & Martins, A.M.F. 2010. List of Molluscs. Pp. 165-177 in Borges, 
P.A.V., Costa, A., Cunha, R.M.T., Gabriel, R., Goncalves V., Martins, A.M.F., Melo, I., 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 173 


Parente, M., Raposeiro, P., Rodrigues, P., Santos R.S., Silva, L., Vieira, P. & Vieira, V. 
(Eds.), A list of the terrestrial and marine biota from the Azores. Principia, Cascais. 
Cunha, R.M.T. da, Rodrigues, A.S. & Sousa, H. 2001. The influence of temperature and 
photoperiod on the maturation of the seminal vesicle and albumen gland in Oxychilus 
(Drouetia) atlanticus (Morelet & Drouét) (Pulmonata, Zonitidae). Arquipélago. Life and 

Marine Sciences, Supplement 2, Part B: 67-70. 

Cunha, R.M.T., Martins, A.M.F., Lourenco, P. & Rodrigues, A.S. 2005. Lista dos Moluscos. 
Pp. 157-161 in Borges, P.A.V., Cunha, R.M.T., Gabriel, R., Martins, A.M.F., Silva, L. 
& Vieira, V. (Eds.), A list of the terrestrial fauna (Mollusca and Arthropoda) and flora 
(Bryophyta, Pteridophyta and Spermatophyta) from the Azores. Direcgao Regional do 
Ambiente and Universidade dos Acores, Horta, Angra do Heroismo and Ponta Delgada. 

Cunha, R.M.T., Rodrigues, A.S., Brito, C.P., Winnepenninckx, B. & Martins, A.M.F. 1993. 
Moluscos terrestres da Ilha do Faial. Lista preliminar. Relatoérios e Comunicagées do 
Departamento de Biologia. Expedicdo Cientifica Faiall93: 22: 53-59. 

de Winter, A.J. 1989. Remarks on the non-marine molluscan fauna of the Azores. 3. A new 
species of Drouetia from the Isle of Sao Miguel (Pulmonata: Zonitidae). Basteria, 53: 
63-67. 

Gomez, B.J. & Rodrigues, A.S. 2000. Calcium phosphate granules in the reproductive system 
of Oxychilus atlanticus (Gastropoda: Pulmonata). Journal of Molluscan Studies, 66: 
197-204. 

Martins, A.M.F. 1989. Espécies novas do género Oxychilus (Gastropoda: Zonitidae) na Ilha 
Terceira. Acoreana, 7: 55-71. 

Martins, A.M.F. 1991. Comparative anatomy of populations of Oxychilus (Drouetia) 
atlanticus (Morelet et Drouét, 1857) (Pulmonata: Zonitidae) from SAo Miguel island, 
Azores. Proceedings of the Tenth International Malacological Congress (Tiibingen, 1989): 
571-575. 

Martins, A.M.F. 1999. Evolution and distribution of the terrestrial molluscs of the Acores. 
Bulletin of the Malacological Society of London, 33: 5-6. 

Martins, A.M.F. 2005. The shaping of a species: the Azorian Drouetia Gude (Pulmonata: 
Zonitidae: Oxychilus) as a model. Records of the Western Australian Museum, Supplement 
no. 68: 143-157. 

Martins, A.M.F., Backeljau, T., Cunha, R.M.T. & Brito, C.P. 1991. Moluscos terrestres da Ilha 
de Santa Maria. Lista preliminar. Relatorios e Comunicacées do Departamento de Biologia. 
Santa Maria e Formigas/1990, 19: 53-59. 

Martins, A.M.F., Cunha, R.M.T., Sousa, M.H. & Melo, P.J. 2006. Distribuicaéo dos moluscos 
terrestres da ilha do Pico (Acores) e variabilidade de Oxychilus (Drouetia) minor 
(Morelet, 1860). Relatorios e Comunicagées do Departamento de Biologia, 34: 53-67. 

Martins, A.M.F., Jordaens, K. & Backeljau, T. 2010. Conchological and anatomical differen- 
tiation in Drouetia land snails from Sao Miguel (Azores). Tropical Natural History, 
Supplement no. 3: 313. 

Morelet, A. & Drouét, H. 1857. Conchologiae Azoricae prodromus novarum specierum 
diagnoses sistens. Journal de Conchyliologie, (2) 6: 148-153. 

Morelet, A. 1860. Notice sur [histoire naturelle des Acores suivie d’une description des 
mollusques terrestres de cet archipel. 214 pp. J.-B. Bailli¢re, Paris. 

Riedel, A. 1964. Zonitidae (Gastropoda) der Azoren. Boletim do Museu Municipal do Funchal, 
18: 5—60. 

Riedel, A. 1980. Genera Zonitidarum. 197 pp. Backhuys Publishers, Rotterdam. 

Rodrigues, A.S. & Gomez, B.J. 1999. Copulatory process in Oxychilus (Drouetia) atlanticus 
(Morelet & Drouét, 1857) (Pulmonata: Zonitidae). International Journal of Invertebrate 
Reproduction and Development, 36: 137-139. 

Rodrigues, A.S. & Martins, R.J. 2003. Annual maturation of the perivaginal gland of 
Oxychilus (Drouetia) atlanticus (Pulmonata: Zonitidae): morphological and cytological 
approaches. Journal of Molluscan Studies, 69: 396-398. 

Rodrigues, A.S., Cunha, R.M.T. & Gomez, B.J. 2003. The egg of Oxychilus (Drouetia) 
atlanticus (Pulmonata: Zonitidae): surface structure and carbohydrate composition. 
Malacologia, 45: 121-124. 


174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


Rodrigues, A.S., Gomez, B., Cunha, R.M.T. da & Martins, A.M.F. 1998. Maturation diagnostic 
Characters in Oxychilus (Drouetia) atlanticus (Morelet & Drouét) (Pulmonata, Zonitidae). 
Iberus, 16: 75-84. 

Rodrigues, A.S., Gomez, B.J. & Martins, R. 2002. The perivaginal gland in Oxychilus 
(Drouetia) atlanticus (Morelet & Drouét, 1857) (Pulmonata: Zonitidae): a histological 
and histochemical approach. Journal of Invertebrate Reproduction and Development, 41: 
95-99. 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 68: 2 
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 


should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 175 


Case 3555 


CHILODONTIDAE Macalister, 1876 (Ciliophora), CHILODONTINAE 
Eigenmann, 1910 (Pisces, Characiformes), and CHILODONTINAE Wenz, 
1938 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed resolution of homonymy 
between family-group names 


D.G. Herbert 


Natal Museum, P. Bag 9070, Pietermaritzburg 3200, South Africa 
(e-mail: dherbert@nmsa.org.za) 


P. Bouchet 


Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue Buffon, 75007 Paris, France 
(e-mail: pbouchet@mnhn.fr) 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 29 and 55 of the Code, is to 
remove the homonymy between the family-group names CHILODONTIDAE Macalister, 
1876 (type genus Chilodon Ehrenberg, 1834 [Ciliophora]), CHILODONTINAE, an emen- 
dation of CHILODINAE Eigenmann, 1910 (type genus Chilodus Miiller & Troschel, 1844 
[Pisces]), and CHILODONTINAE Wenz, 1938 (type genus Chilodonta Etallon, 1859 
[Gastropoda]). It is proposed to place the unused name CHILODONTIDAE Macalister, 
1876 on the Official Index; to place the name CHILODONTINAE Eigenmann, 1910, 
as emended by Fowler (1950), on the Official List; and that the stem of the generic 
name Chilodonta Etallon, 1859 be deemed to be Chilodonta-, such that the name 
CHILODONTINAE Wenz, 1938 is emended to CHILODONTAINAE Wenz, 1938. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Ciliophora; Pisces; Characiformes; Vetigastro- 
poda; SEGUENZIOIDEA; CHILODIDAE; CHILODONTIDAE; CHILODONELLIDAE; homonymy; 
ciliates; fish; gastropods. 


1. The family-group name CHILODONTIDAE was established by Macalister (1876, 
p. 71), based upon the type genus Chilodon Ehrenberg, 1834, for a group of ciliate 
protozoans. Strand (1928, p. 31), because of a perceived homonymy between 
Chilodon Ehrenberg, 1831 [Mollusca] and Chilodon Ehrenberg, 1834, established 
Chilodonella Strand, 1928 as a substitute name for the latter, and Deroux (1970, 
p. 180) established the name CHILODONELLINAE based on Chilodonella Strand, 1928. 
Chilodon Ehrenberg, 1831 is in fact a nomen nudum [no description, no included 
nominal species, and no indication], and Chilodon Ehrenberg, 1834 and cHILo- 
DONTIDAE Macalister, 1876, remain potentially valid names. 

2. The family-group name CHILODINAE was established by Eigenmann (1910, 
p. 424), based on the type genus Chilodus Miller & Troschel, 1844, for a group of 
characiform fish. The name Chilodus Miller & Troschel, 1844, with the type species 
Chilodus punctatus Muller & Troschel, 1844 by monotypy, has been placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by Opinion 1150 (BZN 37(2): 72-74, June 


176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


1980). The spelling of CHILODINAE was later emended by Fowler (1950), on the 
grounds of classical grammar, to CHILODONTINAE. 

3. The gastropod family-group name CHILODONTINAE was established by Wenz 
(1938, p. 296), based on the type genus Chilodonta Etallon, 1859 (type species 
Chilodonta clathrata Etallon, 1859, by subsequent designation of Bayan, 1874, 
Pp 335% 

4. Both CHILODONTINAE (attributed to Eigenmann, 1910) and CHILODONTINAE Wenz, 
1938 are in current use, usually at family level. Usage of the names Chilodon 
Ehrenberg, 1834 and CHILODONTIDAE Macalister, 1876 has been discontinued, and the 
substitutes Chilodonella Strand, 1928 and CHILODONELLINAE Deroux, 1970 (raised to 
family rank by Corliss, 1977, p. 119) are in current use (e.g. Corliss, 1979; Foissner, 
1979, 1988; Lynn, 2010). However, as Chilodon Ehrenberg, 1834 and CHILODONTIDAE 
Macalister, 1876 remained in use well into the 20th century (e.g. Kudo, 1931, p. 354, 
where the family name was attributed in error to Bitschli), they cannot be declared 
nomina oblita under Article 23.9.2 of the Code. 

5. Although there is nothing in Miiller & Troschel’s description of Chilodus that 
suggests that the name was based on the Greek odous (a tooth), Fowler (1950) 
emended the fish name CHILODINAE to CHILODONTINAE because the genitive singular of 
odous is odontos, and thus the stem for the family name would be Chilodont-. This 
interpretation was seconded by Steyskal (1980), who insisted that fish names ending 
in -odus have a stem in -odont-. The latinisation of the Greek odous to odus is a simple 
transliteration of the Greek diphthong -ou- to -u- (cf. Grensted & Chester Bradley, 
1985) and does not constitute a ‘change of ending’ in terms of Article 29.3.2 of the 
Code. If one accepts this etymology of Chilodus, then the genitive stem of Chilodus 
is indeed Chilodont- (Article 29.3.1 of the Code) as claimed by Fowler (1950) and his 
emendation is justified. Although Géry (1977) persisted in using CHILODINAE, making 
it explicit that it was intentional, after Steyskal (1980), the spelling CHILODONTINAE has 
become the accepted one, usually at family level (see, e.g. Vari, 1983; Isbriicker & 
Nilssen, 1988; Vari et al. 1995; Eschmeyer, 1998; Martins et al., 2000; Reis et al., 
2003; Calcagnotto et al., 2005; Nelson, 2006; Berra, 2007; Mirande, 2010). It is also 
consistent with the formation of other fish family-group names e.g. DISTICHODONTIDAE 
(based on Distichodus Miller & Troschel 1844), HEMIODONTIDAE (based on Hemiodus 
Miiller, 1842) and PROCHILODONTIDAE (based on Prochilodus Agassiz, 1829). 

6. The gastropod name CHILODONTINAE was not initially widely used. However, 
since the publication of Hickman & McLean (1990), it has received increasing usage 
in the literature pertaining to Recent and fossil vetigastropods, initially as a tribe 
within the trochoidean EUCYCLINAE (Hickman & McLean, 1990, Hickman, 1996, 
1998: Kiel & Bandel, 2001), and more recently as a family (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005; 
Poppe et al., 2006; Kano, 2008; Williams et al. 2008; Kano et al. 2009; Bandel, 2010) 
within the SEGUENZIOIDEA. CHILODONTINAE Wenz, 1938 has no synonym (see Bouchet 
& Rocroi, 2005). 

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary power: 

(a) to rule that the name Chilodon Ehrenberg, 1834 is suppressed for the 
Purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy; 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 177 


(b) to rule that the name CHILODONTIDAE Macalister, 1876 is suppressed for the 
purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; 

(c) to rule that CHILODONTINAE as emended by Fowler (1950) is a justified 
emendation of the original spelling CHILODINAE Eigenmann, 1910; 

(d) to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code, the stem of the 
generic name Chilodonta Etallon, 1859 is Chilodonta-; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following 

names: 

(a) CHILODONELLINAE Deroux, 1970 (type genus Chilodonella Strand, 1928) 
(Ciliophora); 

(b) CHILODONTINAE Eigenmann, 1910 (type genus Chilodus Miiller & Troschel, 
1844) (Pisces); 

(Cc) CHILODONTAINAE Wenz, 1938 (type genus Chilodonta Etallon, 1859) (spell- 
ing emended by the ruling in (1)(d) above) (Mollusca); 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in 

Zoology the following names: 

(a) CHILODONTIDAE Macalister, 1876, as suppressed by the ruling in (1)(b) 
above (Ciliophora); 

(b) CHILODONTINAE Wenz, 1938 Gunior homonym of CHILODONTINAE Eigen- 
mann, 1910 spelling emended to CHILODONTAINAE by the ruling in (1)(d) 
above (Mollusca). 


Acknowledgements 


We thank Maurice Kottelat (Cornol, Switzerland), Sven Kullander and Anders 
Waren (Swedish Museum of Natural History), Gary Rosenberg (Academy of Natural 
Sciences, Philadelphia), and Richard Vari (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.) 
for their input. We also acknowledge the contribution of an anonymous Commissioner 
regarding the finer points of transliteration and latinisation. 


References 


Bandel, K. 2010. Relationships of the Triassic Eucycloidea Koken, 1897 (Mollusca, Gastro- 
poda) to modern genera such as Pagodatrochus, Calliotropis and Euchelus, based on 
morphology of the early shell. Bulletin of Geosciences, 85(3): 435-486. 

Bayan, M. 1874. Sur la succession des assises et des faunes dans les terrains jurassiques 
supérieurs. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, (3)2: 316-343. 

Berra, T.M. 2007. Freshwater fish distribution. 615 pp. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 

Bouchet, P. & Rocroi, J-P. 2005. Classification and nomenclator of gastropod families. 
Malacologia, 47(1—2): 1-397. 

Calcagnotto, D., Schaefer, S.A. & DeSalle, R. 2005. Relationships among characiform fishes 
inferred from analysis of nuclear and mitochondrial gene sequences. Molecular Phylo- 
genetics and Evolution, 36(1): 135-153. 

Corliss, J.O. 1977. Annotated assignment of families and genera to the orders and classes 
currently comprising the Corlissian scheme of higher classification for the phylum 
Ciliophora. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society, 96: 104—140. 

Corliss, J.O. 1979. The ciliated Protozoa. Characterization, classification and guide to the 
literature, Ed. 2. 455 pp. Pergamon Press, New York. 

Deroux, G. 1970. La série “Chlamydonellienne” chez les Chlamydodontidae (Holotriches, 
Cyrtophorina Fauré-Frémiet). Protistologica, 6: 155—182. 


178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


Ehrenberg, C.G. 1831. Symbolae physicae, seu icones et descriptiones corporum naturalium 
novorum aut minus cognitorum, quae ex itineribus per Libyam, Ai:gyptum, Nubiam, 
Dongalam, Syriam, Arabiam, Habessiniam ... Invertebrata. Decas prima: Mollusca, folio 
d. Berolini. 10 plates with explanations. 

Ehrenberg, C.G. 1834. Dritter Beitrag zur ErkenntniB groBer Organisation in der richtung des 
kleinsten Raumes. Abhandlungen der kéniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 
(1833): 145-336. 

Eigenmann, C.H. 1910. Catalogue of the fresh-water fishes of tropical and South temperate 
America. Reports of Princeton University Expedition to Patagonia 1896-1899, (Zoology), 
3) AIO LZ 

Eschmeyer, W.N. 1998. Catalog of fishes. 3 vols. 2905 pp. Special Publication, California 
Academy of Sciences, San Francisco. 

Foissner, W. 1979. Taxonomische Studien tuber die Ciliaten des GroBglocknergebietes (Hohe 
Tauern, Osterreich). Familien Microthoracidae, Chilodonellidae und Furgasoniidae. 
Sitzungsberichte der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch- 
naturwissenschaftliche Klasse, 188: 27-43. 

Foissner, W. 1988. Taxonomie und Okologie einiger Ciliaten (Protozoa, Ciliophora) des 
Saprobiensystems. II. Familie Chilodonellidae. Hydrobiologia, 162: 21-45. 

Fowler, H.W. 1950. Os peixes de agua doce do Brasil (2a entrega). Arquivos de Zoologia do 
Estado de Sao Paulo, 6: 205-401. 

Géry, J. 1977. Characoids of the world. 672 pp. TFH Publications, Neptune City. 

Grensted, L.W. & Chester Bradley, J. 1985. Transliteration and latinization of Greek words. 
Appendix B in International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Third edition. Inter- 
national Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London. 

Hickman, C.S. 1996. Phylogeny and patterns of evolutionary radiation in trochoidean 
gastropods. Pp. 177-198 in Taylor J.D. (Ed.), Origin and Evolutionary Radiation of the 
Mollusca. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 

Hickman, C.S. 1998. Superfamily Trochoidea. Pp. 671-690 in Beesley, P.L., Ross, G.J.B. & 
Wells, A. (Eds.), Mollusca: the southern synthesis. Fauna of Australia, vol. 5, Part B. viii, 
565-1234 pp. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne. 

Hickman, C.S. & McLean, J.H. 1990. Systematic revision and suprageneric classification of 
trochacean gastropods. Science series, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County: 
35: 1-169. 

Isbriicker, L.J.H. & Nijssen, H. 1988. Review of the South American characiform fish genus 
Chilodus, with description of a new species, C. gracilis (Pisces, Characiformes, chilo- 
dontidae). Beaufortia, 38(3): 47-56. 

Kano, Y. 2008. Vetigastropod phylogeny and a new concept of Seguenzioidea: independent 
evolution of copulatory organs in the deep-sea habitats. Zoologica Scripta, 37: 1-21. 
Kano, Y., Chikyu, E. & Warén, A. 2009. Morphological, ecological and molecular characteri- 
zation of the enigmatic planispiral snail genus Adeuomphalus (Vetigastropoda: Seguenzi- 

oidea). Journal of Molluscan Studies, 75: 397-418. 

Kiel, S. & Bandel, K. 2001. Trochidae (Archaeogastropoda) from the Campanian of Torallola 
in northern Spain. Acta Geologica Polonica, 51(2): 137-154. 

Kudo, R.R. 1931. Handbook of protozoology. 451 pp. Thomas, Springfield. 

Lynn, D.H. 2008 [corrected printing 2010]. The ciliated Protozoa. Ed. 3. xxxiv, 606 pp. 
Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York. 

Macalister, A. 1876. An introduction to animal morphology and systematic zoology. Part 1. 
Invertebrata. 461 pp. Longmans, Green & Co., London. 

Martins, C., Venere, P.C., Mestriner, C.A., Cestari, M.M., Ferreira, R. & Galetti, P.M. 2000. 
Chromosome relationships between Anostomidae and Chilodontidae fish (Characi- 
formes). Cytologia, 65: 153-160. 

Mirande, J.M. 2010. Phylogeny of the family Characidae (Teleostei: Characiformes): from 
characters to taxonomy. Neotropical Ichthyology, 8(3): 385-568. 

Nelson, J.S. 2006. Fishes of the world. Ed. 4. 624 pp. Wiley & Sons, New Jersey. 

Poppe, G.T., Tagaro, S.P. & Dekker, H. 2006. The Seguenziidae, Chilodontidae, Trochidae, 
Calliostomatidae and Solariellidae of the Philippine Islands. Visaya, Supplement 2: 1-228. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 9 


Reis, R.E., Kullander S.O. & Ferraris C.J. 2003. Check list of the freshwater fishes of South and 
Central America. 742 pp. Pontificia Universidade Catélica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto 
Alegre. 

Steyskal, G.C. 1980. The grammar of family-group names as exemplified by those of fishes. 
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 93(1): 168-177. 

Strand, E. 1928. Miscellanea nomenclatorica zoologica et palaeontologica I-II. Archiv fiir 
Naturgeschichte, 92(A8): 30-75. 

Vari, R.P. 1983. Phylogenetic relationships of the families Curimatidae, Prochilodontidae, 
Anostomidae, and Chilodontidae (Pisces: Characiformes). Smithsonian Contributions to 
Zoology, 378: 1-60. 

Vari, R.P., Castro, R.M.C. & Raredon, S.J. 1995. The Neotropical fish family Chilodontidae 
(Teleostei: Characiformes): A phylogenetic study and a revision of Caenotropus Giinther. 
Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 577: i-vi, 1-32. 

Wenz, W. 1938. Gastropoda. Allgemeiner Teil und Prosobranchia. Prosobranchia 2, vol. 6(1): 
241-480 in Wenz, W., Handbuch der Paldozoologie. Gebriider Borntraeger, Berlin. 
Williams, S.T. Karube, S. & Ozawa, T. 2008. Molecular systematics of Vetigastropoda: 

Trochidae, Turbinidae and Trochoidea redefined. Zoologica Scripta, 37: 483-506. 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 68: 93 
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 


should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


Case 3558 


Pleurotoma scabriuscula Brugnone, 1862 (currently Mangelia 
scabriuscula; Mollusca, Gastropoda, CONOIDEA): proposed conservation 


Daniele Scarponi 


Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra e Geologico-Ambientali — Via Zamboni, 
67 40126 Bologna — Italy (e-mail: daniele.scarponi@unibo.it) 


Alessandro Ceregato 
ISMAR CNR — Via Gobetti, 101 40129 Bologna, Italy 
(e-mail: alessandro.ceregato@bo.ismar.cnr.it) 


Giano Della Bella 
Via dei Cedri, 91 40050 Monterenzio Bologna, Italy 


John K. Tucker 


Illinois Natural History Survey, National Great Rivers Research and 
Education Center, 1 Confluence Way, East Alton, Illinois 62024, U.S.A. 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.5 of the Code, is to 
conserve the specific name Pleurotoma scabriuscula Brugnone, 1862 (currently 
Mangelia scabriuscula, CONIDAE) originally published as Pleurotoma scabriusculum, 
a junior primary homonym of Pleurotoma scabriuscula Edwards, 1861 (currently 
Crassispira scabriuscula, TURRIDAE). Both names are in use, even though the latter is 
infrequently reported in the literature, and they have not been considered congeneric 
since 1899 and are unlikely ever to be treated as congeneric again. We propose that 
the name Pleurotoma scabriuscula Brugnone, 1862 (which does not have junior 
synonyms) be conserved by ruling that it is not invalid by reason of being a junior 
primary homonym. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; CONOIDEA; CONIDAE; TURRIDAE; 
Mangelia; Raphitoma; Turris; Crassispira; Pleurotoma; Pleurotoma_ scabriuscula; 
gastropods; Eocene; Pliocene; Pleistocene; Recent; Great Britain; Italy. 


1. The genus Pleurotoma (a Latin neologism from Greek zAgvpd = side, and tour 
= cut) was established by Lamarck (1799, p. 73) based on Murex babylonius 
Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 753), which is the type species by monotypy. By the mid-19th 
century Pleurotoma became one of the largest prosobranch genera with more than 
700 species. However, in many cases the use of Pleurotoma for generic affiliation was 
a result of a tradition (Seguenza, 1873) or the consequence of Pleurotoma being very 
broadly defined. Hence, the need for a stricter definition of Lamarck’s genus has been 
felt from the early-mid-19th century. Indeed, genera such as Bela Leach in Gray, 
1847, Crassispira Swainson, 1840, Mangelia Risso, 1826, and Perrona Schumacher, 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 181 


1817 are examples of taxa originating from Pleurotoma revisions (see among others 
Swainson, 1840; Edwards, 1857). Consequently, starting from the mid-19th century, 
several nominal species, such as Pleurotoma scabriuscula Edwards, 1861 and Pleuro- 
toma scabriusculum Brugnone, 1862, previously attributed to Lamarck’s genus, were 
re-assigned to other genera. 

2. For all of the 20th century Murex babylonius Linnaeus, 1758 was generally 
considered as the type species of Turris Réding, 1798 (see among others Powell, 1966; 
Kilburn, 1983). It was also designated as the type species for Turris Batsch, 1789 
(p. 691) by Dubois & Bour (2010, p. 171). Turris Batsch was established in 1789 so 
it has precedence over Pleurotoma Lamarck, 1799 and Turris Roding, 1798. 

3. The genus Mangelia was described by Risso (1826, p. 221). The description of 
this genus was very short, and the type material for the type species is untraceable 
(Arnaud, 1978; Spada & Della Bella, 2010). Therefore the validity of the genus was 
intensely debated for almost two centuries. As a consequence several new genera were 
proposed that are now considered to be synonyms of Mangelia (Spada & Della Bella, 
2010). The type species Mangelia striolata Risso, 1826 (p. 221) is a senior subjective 
synonym of M. bertrandi Payraudeau, 1827 (Spada & Della Bella, 2010). 

4. The turrid species Pleurotoma scabriuscula Edwards, 1861 (p. 254) from the 
Eocene of Great Britain, is rarely cited in the literature (see Tucker, 2004 for 
references). St. John Burton (1933) was the first author to transfer the species to the 
genus Drillia Gray, 1838, whereas the most recent reference assigns Pleurotoma 
scabriuscula Edwards to the genus Crassispira Swainson, 1840, subgenus Tripia 
Gregorio, 1890 (see Glibert, 1960). Apart from the above cited authors, to our 
knowledge only Newton (1891) reported Pleurotoma scabriuscula Edwards, 1861 
(under the genus Pleurotoma Lamarck). 

5. The name Pleurotoma scabriuscula (cited as Pleurotoma scabriusculum) was 
established by Brugnone (1862, p. 39) for a fossil mangeliid from the Plio—Pleistocene 
of Italy (Scarponi & Della Bella, 2010 and references therein). Pleurotoma is Greek 
in origin and its gender is feminine (see Lamarck, 1801, p. 84), therefore Brugnone’s 
spelling scabriusculum must be corrected. Just a few years after its first description, 
P. scabriusculum was transferred to the subgenus Mangelia Risso, 1826 by Seguenza 
(1873, p. 298). Bellardi (1877) was the first to use Mangelia at genus rank to contain 
Brugnone’s species (fide Tucker, 2004). Bellardi’s combination was followed by 
almost all subsequent authors, although a few used genera are now considered junior 
synonyms of Mangelia (1.e. Mangilia, Cythara (partim) etc.; see Spada & Della Bella, 
2010 for an overview on synonymy of the genus Mangelia) or allied genera such as 
Raphitoma (see Seguenza, 1875). Hence, after 1899 the Brugnone species was 
unanimously considered to belong to the genus Mangelia or one of its synonyms. 
Indeed, almost 150 years after its description, this well known mangeliid has (to our 
knowledge) only been attributed to Pleurotoma by Moroni & Paonita (1963), but 
more than twenty times to Mangelia or its synonyms (see Tucker, 2004; Scarponi & 
Della Bella, 2010). 

6. Both names, Pleurotoma scabriuscula Edwards, 1861 (currently Crassispira 
scabriuscula) and Pleurotoma scabriuscula Brugnone, 1862 (currently Mangelia 
scabriuscula) have been in use for over a hundred years. Both have been referred to 
different genera that are well separated morphologically and phylogenetically and it 
is unlikely that they will be treated as congeneric in the future. Furthermore, 


182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


Brugnone’s species has no available synonym to use as a substitute name. Introduc- 
ing a new replacement name for the widely and well known name Pleurotoma 
scabriuscula Brugnone, 1862 would result in confusion and loss of information. This 
application for the conservation of prevailing usage is submitted in the interest of 
stability and in accordance with Article 23.9.5 of the Code (that is, names not 
considered congeneric after 1899). 
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 
(1) to use its plenary power to rule that the specific name Pleurotoma scabriuscula 
Brugnone, 1862 is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym 
of Pleurotoma scabriuscula Edwards, 1861; 
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) scabriuscula Brugnone, 1862, as published in the binomen Pleurotoma 
scabriusculum, with the endorsement that it is not invalid by reason of 
being a junior primary homonym of Pleurotoma scabriuscula Edwards, 
1861 as ruled in (1) above; 
(b) scabriuscula Edwards, 1861, as published in the binomen Pleurotoma 
scabriuscula. 


References 


Arnaud, P.M. 1978. Révision des taxa malacologiques Méditerranéens introduits par Antoine 
Risso. Annales du Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle de Nice, 5: 101—150. 

Batsch, A.J.G.C. 1789. Versuch einer Anleitung, zur Kenntniss und Geschichte der Thiere und 
Mineralien, fiir akademische Vorlesungen entworfen, und mit den néthigsten Abbildungen 
versehen. Zweyter Theil. Besondre Geschichte der Insekten, Gewtirme und Mineralien. 
Pp. 529-860. Akademische Buchhandlung, Jena. 

Bellardi, L. 1877. I molluschi dei terreni terziarii del Piemonte e della Liguria. Parte II. 
Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, (2)29: 1-373. 

Brugnone, G.A. 1862. Memoria sopra alcuni Pleurotomi fossili dei Dintorni di Palermo. 41 pp., 
1 pls. F. Lao, Palermo. 

Dubois, A. & Bour, R. 2010. The distinction between family-series and class-series nomina in 
zoological nomenclature, with emphasis on the nomina created by Batsch (1788, 1789) 
and on higher nomenclature of turtles. Bonn Biological Bulletin, 57: 149-171. 

Edwards, F.E. 1857. A monograph of the Eocene Mollusca, or descriptions of shells from the 
older Tertiaries of England. Part UI, No. Il. Prosobranchiata (continued), 9: 181-240, pls. 
24-27, Palaeontographical Society, London. 

Edwards, F.E. 1861. A monograph of the Eocene Mollusca, or descriptions of shells from the 
older Tertiaries of England. Part III, No. II. Prosobranchiata (continued), 12: 241-330, 
pls. 28-33. Palaeontographical Society, London. 

Glibert, M. 1960. Les Conacea fossiles du Cénozoique étranger des collections de I’Institut 
Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique. Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de 
Belgique, Mémoire, (2)64: 1-132. 

Kilburn, R.N. 1983. Turridae (Mollusca: Gastropoda) of southern Africa and Mozambique. 
Part 1. Subfamily Turrinae. Annals of the Natal Museum, 25: 549-585. 

Lamarck, J.B. M. de. 1799. Prodrome d’une nouvelle classification des coquilles, comprenant 
une rédaction appropriée des caractéres génériques, et I’établissement d’un grand nombre 
de genres nouveaux. Mémoires de la Société d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris, 1: 63-91. 

Lamarck, J.B.P.A. de. 1801. Systéme des animaux sans vertébres, ou Tableau général des 
classes, des ordres et des genres de ces animaux; Présentant leurs caractéres essentiels et leur 
distribution, d’aprés la considération, et suivant arrangement établi dans les galeries du 
Muséum d Hist. Naturelle, parmi leurs dépouilles conservées; Précédé du discours 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 183 


d ouverture du Cours de Zoologie, donné dans le Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle l’an 
& de la République. viii, 432 pp. Lamarck and Deterville, Paris. 

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 

Moroni, M.A. & Paonita, G. 1963. Nuovi dati sul Pliocene e il Quaternario dei dintorni di 
Palermo. 3) Una malacofauna delle sabbie gialle pliocéniche di Altavilla. Rivista 
Mineraria Siciliana, 14: 27-65. 

Newton, R.B. 1891. Systematic list of Frederick E. Edwards Collection of British Oligocene and 
Eocene Mollusca in the British Museum (Natural History), with references to the 
type-specimens from similar horizons contained in other collections belonging to the 
Geological Department of the Museum. xxviii, 365 pp. British Museum (Natural History), 
London. 

Powell, A.W.B. 1967. The family Turridae in the Indo-Pacific. Part 1a. The subfamily Turrinae 
concluded. Indo-Pacific Mollusca, 1: 409-444. 

Risso, A. 1826. Histoire naturelle des principales productions de Il’Europe Méridionale et 
particuliérement de celle des environs de Nice et des Alpes Maritimes, vol. 4. vii, 439 pp., 
12 pls. F.-G. Levrault, Paris. 

Scarponi, D. & Della Bella, G. 2010. Molluschi marini del Plio-Pleistocene dell’ Emilia-Romagna 
e della Toscana. Superfamiglia Conoidea, vol. 3 — Conidae Il. 128 pp., 21 pls. L’Editore 
Piceno, Ancona. 

Seguenza, G. 1873. Studii stratigrafici sulla formazione pliocenica dell’Italia Meridionale. 
Bollettino del Regio Comitato Geologico d'Italia, 9-10: 294-300. 

Seguenza, G. 1875. Studii stratigrafici sulla formazione pliocenica dell’Italia Meridionale. 
Bollettino del Regio Comitato Geologico d'Italia, 7-8: 199-211. 

Spada, G. & Della Bella, G. 2010. Identification of Mangelia striolata, type species of the genus 
Mangelia Risso, 1826. Bollettino Malacologico, 46: 76-83. 

St. John Burton, E. 1933. Faunal horizons of the Barton Beds in Hampshire. Proceedings of the 
Geologists’ Association, 44: 131-167. 

Swainson, W. 1840. A treatise on malacology or shells and shell-fish. viii, 419 pp. Longman 
et al., London. 

Tucker, J.K. 2004. Catalog of Recent and fossil turrids (Mollusca: Gastropoda). Zootaxa, 682: 
1-1295. 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 94 


Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


Case 3531 


Sematura Dalman, 1825 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, SEMATURIDAE): 
proposed precedence over Mania Hubner, 1821 


Matthew J.W. Cock 


CABI, Rue des Grillons 1, CH-2800 Delémont, Switzerland 
(e-mail: m.cock@cabi.org; mjywcock@btinternet.com) 


Gerardo Lamas 


Departamento de Entomologia, Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad 
Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Ay. Arenales 1256, Apartado 14-0434, 
Lima-14, Peru (e-mail: glamasm@unmsm.edu.pe; paititia@yahoo.com) 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to 
conserve the generic name Sematura Dalman, 1825 (Lepidoptera, SEMATURIDAE) 
which is well-established for a small number of moths widespread in the Neotropical 
region. Because it is also the type genus of the small family SEMATURIDAE, it 1s usually 
cited or illustrated in general works on Lepidoptera and insects in the region. The 
name is threatened by its rarely used senior subjective synonym, Mania Hiibner, 
1821, which dropped out of use because it was incorrectly considered to be an 
unavailable homonym. It is proposed that Sematura Dalman be given precedence 
over Mania Hubner under the plenary power of the Commission, in the interest of 
nomenclatural stability. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Lepidoptera; SEMATURIDAE; Sematura; 
Mania; Nothus; Sematura lunus; Mania empedoclaria; moths; Neotropical Region. 


1. The Lepidoptera family SEMATURIDAE contains a small number of species from 
the Neotropical region and South Africa. It is based on the generic name Sematura 
Dalman, 1825 (p. 407), which has been widely used in the limited literature on this 
family since the middle of the 19th century. An earlier available name, Mania 
Hiibner, 1821, which had been thought to be unavailable, now threatens the stability 
of the type genus of this family. 

2. Mania was established by Hiibner (1821, p. [3]) for the single species Lars 
empedoclaria Hubner, [1819], a junior subjective synonym of Papilio empedocles 
Cramer, 1779 (Fletcher, 1979), although it has also been considered a junior 
subjective synonym of Phalaena lunus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 508) (Hampson, 1918, 
p. 368). 

3. Westwood (1879, p. 510) incorrectly considered Mania Hubner, 1821 to be a 
junior homonym of Mania Treitschke, 1825 (p. 294), and introduced the replacement 
name Manidia. However, Mania Hiibner pre-dates Mania Treitschke, so Westwood’s 
replacement was unjustified. 

4. Sematura was established by Dalman (1825, p. 407) to include Phalaena lunus 
Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 508), Papilio aegisthus Fabricius, 1781 (p. 20) and Papilio 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 185 


empedocles Cramer, 1779 (p. 11). Guenée (1857, pp. 16-19) used the genus Sematura, 
listing Mania as a synonym, to include the species Phalaena lunus, Sematura selene 
Guenée, 1857, S. diana Guenée, 1857, Papilio empedocles and S. phoebe Guenée, 
1857. Hampson (1918, p. 367) incorrectly referred to Sematura as Guenée’s genus, 
but nevertheless selected as its type species Phalaena lunus. 

5. Several authors have used the generic name Nothus Billberg (1820, p. 85) for 
Phalaena lunus and Papilio empedocles, but Nothus is a junior homonym of Nothus 
Olivier, 1811 (p. 383), and also its type species was designated as Phalaena lunus by 
Fletcher (1979), so making it a senior objective synonym of Sematura. This invalid 
homonym is not germane to the status of Sematura and Mania, but continues to 
confuse the nomenclature of this genus. 

6. The species of Sematura have not had the benefit of a recent revision, hence there 
is continuing uncertainty about the number of species and their identity. Gaede 
(1930, p. 832) suggested that empedocles and lunus are likely to be one species, and 
Forbes (1942, p. 289) treats /unus as the male and empedocles as the female synonym. 
In our opinion, although it is quite likely that Linnaeus described the male and 
Cramer described the female of the same species, this is not a foregone conclusion as 
there appear to be other similar species in the genus. Until the genus is revised this 
will not be clear, however all authors have always treated the two specific names as 
congeneric, and there seems no doubt that the two generic names are subjective 
synonyms. 

7. That being the case, Mania has precedence over Sematura. However, Sematura 
is in common usage, while Mania is almost forgotten. Forbes (1942, p. 289) treats 
Mania and Manidia as synonyms of Sematura, commenting correctly that ‘Mania 
Hubner 1823 [sic], is valid over Mania Tr. 1825, but only the latter has had any 
currency in the last century.’ More than 50 years later, this is still true. 

8. Unfortunately Sematura cannot be given precedence over Mania under article 
23.9.2 of the Code, as Mania has been used as valid at least four times since 1899. 
Kaye (1901, p. 150) used it with Sematura placed in brackets afterwards (misspelt as 
Semaetura) for empedoclaria (= empedocles) and actaeon Felder (= /unus) in his 
preliminary list of the moths of Trinidad. In a popular article, Janet (1902, p. 349) 
referred to Mania empedoclaria Hibner as inhabiting ‘. . .Haiti et quelques autre [sic] 
iles des Antilles’. Dyar (1914, p. 244) used it for /unus and empedocles in his treatment 
of the moths of the Canal Zone, Panama. Fischer-Sigwart (1923, p. 22) mentioned 
Mania lunus in a list of Brazilian Lepidoptera. Apart from these four instances, all 
publications located referring to the genus since 1899 have used either Sematura 
(Pagenstecher, 1907; Longstaff, 1912; Pfeiffer, 1917; Hampson, 1918; Jordan, 1923; 
Eltringham, 1925; Kaye & Lamont, 1927; Eltringham, 1929; Gaede, 1930; Brues & 
Melander, 1932; Eltringham, 1933; Forbes, 1942; D’Almeida, 1943; Portmann, 1945; 
Cardoso, 1949; Costa Lima, 1950; Biezanko et al., 1957; Fulton, 1967; Batten & 
Batten, 1968; Stanek, 1969; Smith, 1972; Dickens, 1974; Sbordoni & Forestiero, 
1985; Beutelspacher, 1988, 1992; Scoble, 1992; Minet & Scoble, 1998; Fanger, 1999; 
Salazar, 2001; Viana & Costa, 2001; Cock, 2003; Numfiez, 2004; Corona et al., 2005; 
Chacon & Montero, 2007; Regier et al., 2008; Heppner, 2008; Mutanen et al., 2010), 
Manidia (Calvert & Calvert, 1917, p. 64) or Nothus (Laithwaite et al., 1975; Lamas, 
1989; Hogue, 1993; Racheli & Racheli, 1996; Purser & Garnier, 2007; Scott et al., 
2010). 


186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


9. Internet usage is similarly based on Sematura and Nothus, with no further use of 
Mania or Manidia. Thus, the number of hits with Google for different combinations 
of Sematura spp. together with Lepidoptera on 1 July 2010 was as follows: Mania 
lunus 1; Mania empedocles 1; Manidia lunus 0; Manidia empedocles 0; Sematura lunus 
110; Sematura empedocles 9; Nothus lunus 40; Nothus empedocles 22. It should be 
noted that the use of a combination does not mean that this is the accepted name on 
a given website; it may be listed as a synonym or incorrect name. However, it is clear 
that Mania is not in common usage for the two principal species of Sematura. 

10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary power to give the name Sematura Dalman, 1825 precedence 
over the name Mania Hiibner 1821, whenever the two are considered to be 
synonyms; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) Sematura Dalman, 1825 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 

designation by Hampson (1918) Phalaena lunus Linnaeus, 1758, with the 
endorsement that it is to be given precedence over Mania Hubner, 1821 
whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; 

(b) Mania Hubner, 1821 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Lars 
empedoclaria Hiibner, [1819], with the endorsement that it is not to be 
given precedence over Sematura Dalman, 1825 whenever the two are 
considered to be synonyms; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) /unus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Phalaena lunus, specific 

name of the type species of Sematura Dalman, 1825; 

(b) empedoclaria Hubner, [1819], as published in the binomen Lars empedoc- 

laria, specific name of the type species of Mania Hiibner, 1821. 


References 


Batten, A.G.M. & Batten, A.M. 1968. Seven weeks in Jamaica, winters 1966-1967. Entomolo- 
gist’s Record and Journal of Variation, 80(1): 3-7. 

Beutelspacher, C.R. 1988. Revision de la familia Uraniidae (Insecta: Lepidoptera) en México. 
Anales del Instituto de Biologia. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (Zoologia), 
58(1): 265-325. 

Beutelspacher, C.R. 1992. Catalogo de la Coleccién Roberto Miller (Lepidoptera: Heterocera) 
del Museo de Historia Natural de la Ciudad de México. Cuadernos. Instituto de Biologia. 
Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México, 15: 1-465. 

Biezanko, C.M., Ruffinelli, A. & Carbonell, C.S. 1957. Lepidoptera del Uruguay. Lista anotada 
de especies. Revista de la Facultad de Agronomia. Universidad de la Republica (Montevideo), 
46: 1-152. 

Billberg, G.J. 1820. Enumeratio insectorum in Museo Gust. Joh. Billberg. 138 pp. Typis 
Gadelianis, Holmiae [= Stockholm], Sweden. 

Brues, C.T. & Melander, A.L. 1932. Classification of insects. A key to the known families of 
insects and other terrestrial arthropods. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 
at Harvard College, 73: 1-672. 

Calvert, A.C.S. & Calvert, P.P. 1917. A year of Costa Rican natural history. xxii, 577 pp. The 
Macmillan Company, New York. 

Cardoso, A.S. 1949. Lepiddpteros de Alagoas. Revista de Entomologia (Rio de Janeiro), 
20(1/3): 427-436. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 187 


Chacon, I.A. & Montero, J.J. 2007. Mariposas de Costa Rica. Butterflies and moths of Costa 
Rica. 366 pp. Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad, Santo Domingo de Heredia. 

Cock, M.J.W. (2003) On the number of species of moths (Lepidoptera) in Trinidad and 
Tobago. Living World, Journal of the Trinidad and Tobago Field Naturalists’ Club, 2003: 
49-58. 

Corona, A.M., Acosta, R. & Morrone, J.J. 2005. Estudios biogeograficos en insectos de la Zona 
de Transicién Mexicana. Pp. 71-87 in Morrone, J.J. & Llorente Bousquets, J. (Eds.), 
Componentes bidticos principales de la Entomofauna Mexicana. Volumen 1. Las Prensas de 
Ciencias, UNAM, Mexico. 

Costa Lima, A. da. 1950. Insetos do Brasil, 6.° Tomo. Lepidopteros 2.“ Parte. 420 pp. Escola 
Nacional de Agronomia, Rio de Janeiro. 

Cramer, P. 1779. De uitlandsche Kapellen voorkomende in de drie Waereld-Deelen Asia, Africa 
en America — Papillons exotiques des trois parties du monde I’ Asie, I’ Afrique et l’ Amerique, 
part 17. 11-20 pp. J. van Schoonhoven, Amsterdam. 

Dalman, J.W. 1825. Forsok att narmare bestamma slagtet Castnia Fabr., samt de detsamma 
tillhorande Arter. Kongl. Vetenskaps-Academiens Handlingar, 1824(2): 392-407. 

D’Almeida, R.F. 1943. Sdbre a nomenclatura de alguns grupos superiores da Ordem 
Lepidoptera. 2.a nota: Familias Lasiocampidae, Lymantriidae, Mimallonidae e Uraniidae 
e superfamilia Arctioidea. Arquivos do Museu Paranaense, 3: 131-143. 

Dickens, M. 1974. The world of moths. 128 pp. The Macmillan Company, New York. 

Dyar, H.G. 1914. Report on the Lepidoptera of the Smithsonian Biological Survey of the 
Panama Canal Zone. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 47: 139-350. 

Eltringham, H. 1925. On a new sense organ in certain Lepidoptera. Transactions of the 
Entomological Society of London, 1925: 7-9, plate II. 

Eltringham, H. 1929. On a new organ in certain Lepidoptera. Transactions of the Entomological 
Society of London, 77: 471-473. 

Eltringham, H. 1933. The senses of insects. ix, 126 pp. Methuen & Co. Ltd., London. 

Fabricius, J.C. 1781. Species Insectorum exhibentes eorum differentias specificas, synonyma 
auctorum, loca natalia, metamorphosin adiectis observationibus, descriptionibus, vol. 2. 
517 pp. C.E. Bohnii, Hamburgi & Kilonii. 

Fanger, H. 1999. Comparative morphology of tergal phragmata occurring in the dorsal thoraco- 
abdominal junction of ditrysian Lepidoptera (Insecta). Zoomorphology, 119(3): 163-183. 

Fischer-Sigwart, H. 1923. Schmetterlinge vom Amazonenstrome in Brasilien im Zofinger 
Museum. Societas Entomologica, 38(6): 21-23. 

Fletcher, D.S. 1979. The generic names of moths of the world. Volume 3. Geometroidea. 263 pp. 
British Museum (Natural History), London. 

Forbes, W.T.M. 1942. The Lepidoptera of Barro Colorado Island, Panama. No. 2. Bulletin of 
the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 90: 265-406, pls 9-16. 

Fulton, M. 1967. A list of Lepidoptera collected in Costa Rica. Revista de Biologia Tropical 
(San José), 14(2): 287-292. 

Gaede, M. 1930. Uranidae. Pp. 829-837, pls. 138-139 in Seitz, A. (Ed.), The Macrolepidoptera 
of the world; a systematic description of the hitherto known Macrolepidoptera, ed. in 
collaboration with well-known specialists. Volume 6. A. Kernen, Stuttgart. 

Guenée, A. 1857. Uranides et Phalénites Tome 1. Jn Boisduval, [J.A.] & Guenée, [A.] Histoire 
naturelle des insectes; spécies général des lépidoptéres. Tome IX. 514 pp. Roret, Paris. 
Hampson, G.F. 1918. Some small families of the Lepidoptera which are not included in the key 
to the families in the catalogue of Lepidoptera Phalaenae, a list of the families and 
subfamilies of the Lepidoptera with their types and a key to the families. Novitates 

Zoologicae, 25(2): 366-394. 

Heppner, J.B. 2008. American swallowtail moths (Lepidoptera: Sematuridae). P. 149 in 
Capinera, J.L. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of entomology, 2nd edition. Springer, Netherlands. 
Hogue, C.L. 1993. Latin American insects and entomology. xiv, 536pp. University of California 

Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. 

Hiibner, J. 1821. Index exoticorum lepidopterorum, in foliis 244 a Jacobo Hiibner hactenus 
effigiatorum; adjectis denominationibus emendatis, tam communioribus quam exactioribus. 7 
pp. The author, Augsburg. 


188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


Janet, A. 1902. Les Papillons. Causeries scientifiques de la Société Zoologique de France, 1(9): 
309-350, 1 plate. 

Jordan, K. 1923. On a sensory organ found on the head of many Lepidoptera. Novitates 
Zoologicae, 30(1): 155-158. 

Kaye, W.J. 1901. A preliminary catalogue of the Lepidoptera Heterocera of Trinidad. 
Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 1901: 115-158, pls. 5-6. 

Kaye, W.J. & Lamont, N. 1927. A catalogue of the Trinidad Lepidoptera Heterocera (moths). 
Memoirs of the Department of Agriculture, Trinidad and Tobago, 3: 1-144. 

Laithwaite, E., Watson, A. & Whalley, P.E.S. 1975. The dictionary of butterflies and moths in 
colour. 298 pp. George Rainbird Ltd., London. 

Lamas, G. 1989. Lista preliminar de los Saturniidae, Oxytenidae, Uraniidae y Sematuridae 
(Lepidoptera) de la Zona Reservada de Tambopata, Madre de Dios, Peru. Revista 
Peruana de Entomologia, 31: 57-60. 

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema nature per regna tria nature, secundum classes, ordines, genera, 
species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Tomus I. Editio decima, reformata. 
pp. [1-4], 1-824. Salvius, Holmize [=Stokholm]. 

Longstaff, G.B. 1912. Butterfly-hunting in many lands. Notes of a field naturalist. xx, 729 pp. 
Longmans, Green & Co., London. 

Minet, J. & Scoble, M.J. 1998. 17. The Drepanoid / Geometroid assemblage. Pp. 301-320 in 
Kristensen, N.P. (Ed.), Lepidoptera, butterflies and moths. Vol. 1. Evolution, systematics 
and biogeography. Handbook of Zoology, Volume 4. Arthropoda: Insecta, Part 35. Walter 
de Gruyter Inc. New York. 

Mutanen, M., Wahlberg, N. & Kaila, L. 2010. Comprehensive gene and taxon coverage 
elucidates radiation patterns in moths and butterflies. Proceedings of the Royal Society 
(B), 277(1695): 2839-2848. 

Nifiez, R. 2004. Lepidoptera (Insecta) de Topes de Collantes, Sancti Spiritus, Cuba. Boletin de 
la Sociedad Entomologica Aragonesa, 34: 151-159. 

Olivier, G.A. 1811. Encyclopédie méthodique: Histoire naturelle. Insectes, vol. 8. 722 pp. H. 
Agasse, Imprimeur-Libraire, Paris. 

Pagenstecher, A.A.F. 1907. Die Lepidopterenfauna der Antillen. Jahrbticher des Nassauischen 
Vereins fiir Naturkunde, 60: 91-102. 

Pfeiffer, L. 1917. Bemerkungen tber einige von Herrn A. H. Fass] in Columbien gefangene 
Castnia-, Urania- und Homidiana-Arten. Entomologische Zeitschrift, 31(3): 11-12. 

Portmann, A. 1945. The beauty of butterflies. 11 pp. Iris Books, New York. 

Purser, B.H. & Garnier, M. 2007. La lépidofaune guyanaise — Originalité et abondance. Pp. 
6-12 in Lacomme, D. & Manil, L. (Eds.), Lépidopteres de Guyane. Tome 1. Généralités — 
Bibliographie. Hétérocéres 1. Lépidoptéristes Parisiens, Paris. 

Racheli, L. & Racheli, T. 1996. Note preliminari sugli Oxytenidae e Sematuridae dell’ Ecuador 
(Lepidoptera). Bollettino della Societa Entomologica Italiana, 128(2): 151-154. 

Regier, J.C., Cook, C.P., Mitter, C. & Hussey, A. 2008. A phylogenetic study of the 
‘bombycoid complex’ (Lepidoptera) using five protein-coding nuclear genes, with com- 
ments on the problem of macrolepidopteran phylogeny. Systematic Entomology, 22(1): 
175-189. 

Salazar, J.A. 2001. Contribucién al conocimiento de las especies pertenecientes a los géneros 
Homidiana Strand y Sematura Dalman (Lepidoptera: Sematuridae) de Colombia. Boletin 
Cientifico, Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad de Caldas, 5: 125-126. 

Sbordoni, V. & Forestiero, S. 1985. The world of butterflies. 312 pp. Blandford Press, Dorset. 

Schmid, M. & Endicott, B.M. 1968. Mariposas de Venezuela. xi, 67 pp. L. Levison Junr., 
Copenhagen. 

Scoble, M.J. 1992. The Lepidoptera: form, function and diversity. 404 pp. Oxford University 
Press, Oxford. 

Scott, J.L., Kawahara, A.Y., Skevington, J.H., Yen, S.-H., Sami, A., Smith, M.L. & Yack, J.E. 
2010. The evolutionary origins of ritualized acoustic signals in caterpillars. Nature 
Communications, 1(4): 1-9. 

Smith, N.G. 1972. Migrations of the day-flying moth Urania in Central and South America. 
Caribbean Journal of Science, 12: 45-48. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 189 


Stanek, V.J. 1969. The pictorial encyclopedia of insects. 544 pp. Hamlyn, London. 

Treitschke, [G].F. 1825. Die Schmetterlinge von Europa, vol. 5(1). xvi, 414 pp. Gerhard 
Fleischer, Leipzig. 

Viana, T.M.B. & Costa, E.C. 2001. Lepiddépteros associados a duas comunidades florestais em 
Itaara, RS. Ciéncia Florestal (Santa Maria), 11(1): 67-80. 

Westwood, J.O. 1879. Observations on the Uraniidae, a family of lepidopterous insects, with 
a synopsis of the family and a monograph of Coronidia, one of the genera of which it is 
composed. Transactions of the Zoological Society, 10: 507-542, pls. 85-88. 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 198. 


Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


Case 3503 


Papilio hesperus Westwood, 1843 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, PAPILIONIDAE): 
proposed conservation by the suppression of Papilio hesperus 
Fabricius, 1793 (NYMPHALIDAE) 


Torben B. Larsen 


Jacobys alle 2, 1806 Frederiksberg C, Denmark 
(e-mail: torbenlarsen@btinternet.com) 


Masaya Yago 


The University Museum, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, 
Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113—0033, Japan (e-mail: myago@um-u-tokyo.ac.jp) 


R.I. Vane-Wright 


Department of Entomology, the Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, 
London SW7 5BD, UK; and Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, 
University of Kent, Canterbury CT2 7NR, U.K. 

(e-mail: dickvanewright@btinternet.com) 


Mark Williams 


PO Box 12538, Onderstepoort 0110, South Africa 
(e-mail: mark.williams@up.ac.za) 


Kyoichiro Ueda 


Kitakyushu Museum of Natural History and Human History, 
2-4-1 Higashida, Yahatahigashi-ku, Kitakyushu 805-0071, Japan 
(e-mail: ueda@kmnh.jp) 


Takashi Yokochi 


1-10-26 Shonan, Owariasahi, Aichi 488-0823, Japan 
(e-mail: tyokochi@ga2.so-net.ne.jp) 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to 
conserve the name Papilio hesperus Westwood, 1843 (Lepidoptera, PAPILIONIDAE) for 
a well-known species of butterfly. In 1995 it was proposed to ask the Commission to 
suppress Papilio hesperus Fabricius, 1793 (Lepidoptera, NYMPHALIDAE) 1n order to 
conserve Papilio hesperus Westwood, 1843 (Lepidoptera, PAPILIONIDAE), but a formal 
application was never made. The senior name has not otherwise been used except as 
a junior synonym of Papilio daedalus Fabricius, 1775, or in inconclusive discussions, 
for 200 years or more. Accepting its seniority would be very disruptive to taxonomic 
stability of butterfly names in much of the African rainforest zone. The suppression 
of Papilio hesperus Fabricius, 1793 for the purposes of both the Principle of 
Homonymy and the Principle of Priority would coincidentally also serve to conserve 
the name Harma chalcis C. & R. Felder, 1860, which is in widespread use in much of 
Africa in the combination Euryphura chalcis. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 191 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Lepidoptera; NYMPHALIDAE; PAPILIONI- 
DAE; Papilio; Hamanumida; Hamanumida daedalus; meleagris; hesperus; phemius; 
chalcis; Africa. 


Introduction 


1. Papilio daedalus Fabricius, 1775 (p. 482) (currently Hamanumida daedalus) has 
been widely used since its publication for a very characteristic nymphalid butterfly 
that is common in all Afrotropical countries (d’Abrera, 1980, p. 346). This name has 
also universally been accepted as a senior synonym of Papilio melantha Fabricius, 
1775 (p. 513) (type material of P. melantha in Banks Collection, Natural History 
Museum, London). Papilio dedalus Cramer, 1775 (currently Eupalamides cyparissias 
(Fabricius, 1777, p. 257); Heterocera, CASTNIIDAE) is a junior homonym of Papilio 
daedalus Fabricius, 1775 under Article 58.1 of the Code, and is considered to have 
been published 31 December 1775 (see Opinion 516, Opinions and Declarations, 19: 
1-43, May 1958). Papilio daedalus Fabricius, 1775 is a senior synonym of Papilio 
meleagris Cramer [1775, p. 102]. During the 19th century daedalus and meleagris were 
both widely used, always for what we now know to be seasonal forms of the same 
species. Drury [1782] gave a good illustration of the latter, thus popularising the 
name meleagris. 

2. Hubner [1819, p. 18] placed Papilio meleagris in his new genus Hamanumida 
together with several other species that were completely unrelated, but he designated 
no type species and did not mention P. daedalus or P. hesperus. 

3. Papilio hesperus Fabricius, 1793 (p. 47) has also generally been considered a 
junior synonym of P. daedalus, or of uncertain status. There is no type material in the 
Fabricius Collection (ZMUC, Copenhagen). In his description, Fabricius refers to an 
illustration made by William Jones from a specimen in Drury’s collection. Godart 
[1824] (p. 327) gave a French translation of the original description and referred to 
the illustration in ‘Jones Icones’, placing hesperus Fabricius as a species in the genus 
Nymphalis — in which he also placed P. daedalus Fabricius, 1775. 

4. Westwood [1846-1852] included P. hesperus Fabricius, 1793 as a possible 
member of the Oriental genus Adolias Boisduval, 1836 with a question mark, without 
description and without locality. Westwood also makes reference to ‘Jones Icones’, 
which he may have used to reach this conclusion. Moore (1859) included it as sp. 50 
in his revision of Adolias, referring back to the above works, without any description 
or further information. No other African species was included in Moore’s concept of 
Adolias (currently the Oriental genus Euthalia Hubner, [1819)). 

5. Papilio hesperus Fabricius, 1793 was quoted as a junior synonym of Aterica 
daedalus by Butler [1870], though with the following comment: *. . . the description of 
P. hesperus is not good, and agrees much better with the female of Adolias phemius 
of Doubleday [currently Euthalia phemius (Doubleday, [1848])]’. However, Butler 
presumably did not see the ‘Icones’, since neither sex of E. phemius could possibly be 
mistaken for the species figured by Jones (see paras 12, 13, below). Had Butler 
actually seen the ‘Icones’, he would certainly have considered it a valid species rather 
than a potential synonym. 


192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


p fyecdiel BS [4d Hesperus 


| : 4 i bis Je £ * ( ee f. . pity * ie eh 
eS) Aen piigee Lh py Yr 
| (de eft tL oe, LEA LES car, FO LH) aHeu. Qed frupe ‘af Btls tier al eo 


Fig. 1. Papilio hesperus Fabricius, 1793 [currently Euryphura chalcis (C. & R. Felder, 1860)], figures of 
syntype in Jones’ Icones (Oxford University Museum of Natural History), photo by K. Ueda. 


6. Kirby’s (1871) well-known world catalogue of butterflies placed P. daedalus 
as the only valid species in the genus Hamanumida (including meleagris, melantha 
and hesperus Fabricius as junior synonyms). Scudder (1875, p. 183) considered 
Kirby’s action to be a valid type species restriction for the genus, but Scudder’s 
own deliberate selection of “P. daedalus (meleagris) from among all Hubner’s 
putative members of the group should be considered the valid designation of the type 
species according to Hemming (1967, p. 207). Thus the type species of the genus 
Hamanumida is Papilio meleagris Cramer, [1775]. P. hesperus Fabricius, 1793 has 
been treated as a junior synonym of P. daedalus in subsequent literature on African 
Lepidoptera. 

7. De Nicéville (1886) mentioned P. hesperus Fabricius, 1793 in his list of references 
under Euthalia phemius Doubleday, but also referred to the fact that Butler [1870] 
placed it as a junior synonym of Aterica daedalus. It was not used as a valid name. 
There will have been additional indecisive discussions in the literature on Oriental 
butterflies, but we have not seen any from the 20th century. 

8. In his influential book, the first to treat the entire known African butterfly fauna, 
Aurivillius [1899] used Hamanumida daedalus as the valid name but treated meleagris 
as a seasonal form ‘var. (temp)’. The original descriptions are in accord with this view 
(daedalus: ‘... ale subtus ochracee, immaculate aut obsolete macule’ [dry season]; 
meleagris: ‘... ale subtus ochracee, albomaculate’ [wet season]). Drury’s [1782] 
illustration of meleagris has the white-spotted wet season underside that is almost 
immaculate in the nominate dry season morph. Aurivillius ({1899], 1912, p. 191) 
made no reference to P. hesperus Fabricius, presumably considering this now to be an 
‘Indian’ matter. 

9. Shortly after Scudder’s designation of the type species, the combination 
Hamanumida daedalus became almost universally used, with Papilio hesperus 
Fabricius, 1793 usually mentioned as a junior synonym. Following Aurivillius [1899], 
the name meleagris fell into disuse, except as an infrasubspecific name for the wet 
season morph. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 193 


Homonymy 


10. Despite usually being considered a junior subjective synonym of P. daedalus in 
Africa and its rather confused treatment in the Indian literature, Papilio hesperus 
Fabricius, 1793 (p. 47) remains an available name and is therefore a senior primary 
homonym of Papilio hesperus Westwood, [1843, p. 189]. Papilio hesperus Westwood 
is a majestic swallowtail (PAPILIONIDAE) that is widespread in the rainforests between 
Nigeria, Uganda and Zambia (d’Abrera, 1980, p. 16). This combination has been 
used consistently since the description was published more than 150 years ago, 
although sometimes removed to the genus Princeps Hiibner, [1807], which is treated 
as, at best, a subgenus by most authors (e.g. Collins & Morris, 1985; Ackery et al., 
1995; Smith & Vane-Wright, 2008). 

11. This homonymy was recognised by Ackery et al. (1995) in the authoritative 
catalogue ‘Carcasson’s African Butterflies’. The authors stated: ‘The name Papilio 
hesperus Westwood has been in widespread use since its establishment. We propose 
to make a case to the I.C.Z.N. to here set aside the principle of priority, in order to 
maintain stability by conserving P. hesperus Westwood as a valid nominal taxon’. 
The plea on P. hesperus Westwood was also followed by later researchers (e.g. 
Larsen, 2003, 2005; Zakharov et al., 2004). Such an application has not yet been 
made, but is still necessary for nomenclatural stability. If P. hesperus Westwood 
cannot be used, its replacement would be Papilio horribilis var. calabaricus Distant, 
1879 (p. 649). Although calabaricus was originally described as a variety and has not 
been in use as a valid name since 1899, because it was published before 1961 and its 
author did not give it infrasubspecific rank (Article 45.6.4), it is available. 


Discussion 


12. We recently discovered that the specimen illustrated in the original Jones’ Icones 
in Oxford (Jones, before summer 1787: see Vane-Wright & Gaonkar, 2006; Vane- 
Wright, 2010) to which the description of Papilio hesperus Fabricius, 1793 refers is 
very different from his Papilio daedalus (for an account of the otherwise unpublished 
Jones’ Icones, see Waterhouse, 1938); this combination cannot be considered a junior 
synonym thereof. The specimen is not in the Banks Collection at the Natural History 
Museum, London, nor in the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow, but not all the paintings 
in the ‘Icones’ were based on material that formed part of those collections. One of 
the most frequent sources that Jones used was that of another London-based 
collector, Dru Drury — whom Jones clearly indicates as the source of his illustration. 
The most likely depository for Drury specimens is the Macleay collection in Sydney, 
Australia — but only a small proportion of his material survives there (Hancock et al., 
2008), and no original P. hesperus Fabricius material has been located. 

13. Jones’s illustration was, as usual, of exceptional accuracy (e.g. Vane-Wright & 
Gaonkar, 2006; Vane-Wright, 2010). The specimen of Papilio hesperus Fabricius, 1793 
figured in the ‘Icones’ and referenced in the original description is without doubt a male 
of Harma chalcis C. & R. Felder, 1860 from ‘Guinea’. Though this species is actually 
compatible with Fabricius’s summary description, no-one ever made this suggestion 
before. Butler [1870] would certainly have done so (see para. 3) had he actually seen the 
‘Icones’ at the time, since the Felders’ work was well known to him by then. Harma 
chalcis is now placed in the genus Euryphura Staudinger, 1891, and is widely distributed 


194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


throughout the African rainforest zone. The name chalcis has been consistently used 
since it was described in 1860 in various publications and, since 1891, nearly always 
as Euryphura chalcis — although Ackery et al. (1995) treated Euryphura as a subgenus 
of Euriphene Boisduval, 1847. It has sometimes been confused with Euryphura 
plautilla (Hewitson, 1865). Under the provisions of Article 23.9.1 of the Code, the 
condition of Article 23.9.1.1 is met in the case of P. hesperus Fabricius, since the name 
is a senior synonym of E. chalcis and has not been used as a valid name after 1899. 
However, EF. chalcis has not been used in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 
authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less 
than 10 years (the list is held by the Secretariat), so the condition of Article 23.9.1.2 
is not met. Thus we consider that the use of P. hesperus Fabricius (the senior 
synonym) would threaten stability or universality, and so wish to maintain use of 
E. chalcis (the junior synonym) under the provision of Article 23.9.3. 

14. Papilio hesperus Fabricius, 1793 has effectively never been used except as a 
synonym of Papilio daedalus or given uncertain status before 1899, as mentioned 
above (paras 3, 4, 13). Papilio hesperus Westwood, 1843, on the other hand, is at 
present widely used (a list of 53 publications using this combination, the status of 
which has never been questioned, is held by the Secretariat). It is also well-established 
as the name for a species-group of four or five similar, largely allopatric swallowtails 
(the Papilio hesperus-group: e.g. Berger, 1950; Munroe, 1961; Hancock, 1983; 
Zakharov et al., 2004). The term was used earlier in a slightly wider sense by 
Aurivillius (1899, p. 16), and in ‘Seitz’ (Aurivillius, 1908, p. 16). 

15. The suppression of Papilio hesperus Fabricius, 1793 would serve to avoid 
significant confusion concerning the well-known Papilio hesperus Westwood, 1843, 
the Papilio hesperus-group, and the subspecific name associated with the species. It 
would also dispel any doubt as to the continued validity of Euryphura chalcis (C. & 
R. Felder, 1860), or the recurrence of the name hesperus in discussions on Oriental 
Euthalia Hubner, [1819] (formerly Adolias). There would be no negative conse- 
quences; interpretation of all existing literature would remain unaffected. However, 
P. hesperus Fabricius remains a primary homonym. Under the provisions of Article 
23.9.1 of the Code, the condition of Article 23.9.1.1 is met for conserving P. hesperus 
Westwood, but that of Article 23.9.1.2 is not met, as in E. chalcis. 

16. Under the provisions of Articles 23.9.1 and 23.9.2 of the Code, it would be possible 
to conserve the homonymous name P. hesperus Westwood by declaring it a nomen 
protectum, without requiring a ruling by the Commission. However, the condition of 
Article 23.9.1.2 is not met in the case of the synonymous name E. chalcis, so a strict 
application of the Code would require replacing this name with its senior synonym, 
unless the senior name is suppressed under Article 23.9.3. If the Fabrician name were not 
suppressed, then its resurrection, as Euryphura hesperus (Fabricius, 1793), would 
necessitate a Commission ruling under Article 23.9.5 to conserve Westwood’s name, 
since Article 23.9.1.1 would no longer be satisfied. Therefore, in order to maintain 
nomenclatural stability and to reduce potential future confusion, it is proposed that the 
name Papilio hesperus Fabricius, 1793, be suppressed under Article 23.9.3 of the Code. 

17. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: 

(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the name hesperus Fabricius, 1793, as 

published in the binomen Papilio hesperus, for the purposes of both the 
Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 ih) 


(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name hesperus 
Westwood, 1843, as published in the binomen Papilio hesperus; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the name hesperus Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen 
Papilio hesperus and as suppressed in (1) above. 


Acknowledgements 


The authors would like to thank those Commissioners who have commented in detail 
on this application, leading to a number of improvements and clarifications. The 
Oxford University Museum of Natural History and its staff kindly facilitated the 
photography for Fig. 1. 


References 


Ackery, P.R., Smith, C.R., & Vane-Wright, R.I. (Eds.). 1995. Carcasson’s African butterflies: an 
annotated catalogue of the Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea of the Afrotropical Region. 
xi, 803 pp. CSIRO Australia, Canberra. 

Aurivillius, [P.O.JC. 1899. Rhopalocera Aethiopica. Die Tagfalter des Aethiopischen 
Faunengebietes. Eine Systematisch-Geographische Studie. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskaps- 
Akademiens Handlingar, 31(5): 1-561. 

Aurivillius, [P.O.JC. 1908-1925. 1. The African Rhopalocera. In Seitz, A. (Ed.), Die Gross- 
Schmetterlinge der Erde, vol. (2)13, vii, 613 pp., 80 pls. F. Lehmann/A. Kernen, Stuttgart. 

Berger, L.A. 1950. Catologues raisonnés de la faune entomologique du Congo Belge 
Lépidoptéres-Rhopalocéres 1. — Fam. Papilionidae. Annales du Musée Royal du Congo 
Belge. C-Zoologie, (3) 8(1): 1-102. 

Boisduval, J.B.A. 1836. Jn [Roret, Suites 4 Buffon] Histoire naturelles des Insectes. Species 
général des Lépidopteres, vol. 1: [iv], xii, 690, 6 pp., 24 pls. Librairie Encyclopédique de 
Roret, Paris. 

Boisduval, J.B.A. 1847. Catalogue des Lépidoptéres recueillis par M. Delegorgue pendant les 
années 1838-1844 a Port-Natal, au pays de Amazoulous et dans la contrée de Massilicatzi. 
In Delegorgue, A., Voyage dans I’ Afrique australe vol. 2. Pp. 585-602. A. René, Paris. 

Butler, A.G. [1870]. Catalogue of diurnal Lepidoptera described by Fabricius in the collection of 
the British Museum [vi], 303 pp. British Museum, London. 

Collins, N.M. & Morris, M.G. 1985. Threatened swallowtail butterflies of the world. The 
IUCN Red Data Book. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 

Cramer, P. [1775-1776]. De Uitlandsche Kapellen voorkomende in de drie Waereld-Deelen Asia, 
Africa en America. Vol. I. [vi], xxx, 16 pp., 155 pp., 96 pls. S.J. Baalde, Amsteldam/B. 
Wild, Utrecht. 

d’Abrera, B. 1980. Butterflies of the Afrotropical region. xx, 593 pp. Lansdowne Press, Melbourne. 

de Nicéville, L. 1886. The butterflies of India, Burmah and Ceylon, vol. 2. vii, 332 pp., 8 pls. 
Calcutta Central Press, Calcutta. 

Distant, W.L. 1879. On some African species of the lepidopterous genus Papilio. Proceedings 
of the Scientific Meetings of the Zoological Society of London, 1879: 646-649. 

Drury, D. 1782. I/lustrations of natural history, vol. 3. xxviii, 76, 2 pp., 50 pls. B. White, London. 

Fabricius, J.C. 1775 [17 April]. Systema Entomologiae [xxxii], 1-832. Flensburgh & Leipzig, 
Library Kortii. 

Fabricius, J.C. 1793. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta, 3 (1): [vi], 1-488. C.G. Proft, 
Copenhagen. 

Felder, C. & Felder, R. 1860. Lepidopterologische Fragmente. Wiener Entomologische 
Monatschrift, 4. 225-251. 

Godart, J.B. 1819-1824. In Latreille, P.A. & Godart, J.B., Encyclopédie méthodique, Histoire 
naturelle des insectes, vol. 9. 828 pp. Veuve Agasse, Paris. 

Hancock, D.L. 1983. Classification of the Papilionidae (Lepidoptera): a phylogenetic ap- 
proach. Smithersia, 2: 148. 


196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


Hancock, E.G., Broadsmith-Brown, G., Douglas, A.S. & Vane-Wright, R.I. 2008. William 
Hunter’s Museum and discovery of the Madagascan pipevine swallowtail butterfly, 
Pharmacophagus antenor (Drury, 1773). Antenna, 32(1): 10-17. 

Hemming, F. 1967. The generic names of the butterflies and their type-species (Lepidoptera: 
Rhopalocera). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Entomology), Supple- 
ment, 9: 1-509. 

Hiibner, J. [1806-1819]. Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, 1: [vi], 213 pls. J. Hubner, 
Augsburg. 

Hiibner, J. [1816-1826]. Verzeichniss bekannter Schmetterlinge. 431+72 pp. J. Hubner, Augsburg. 

Jones, W. [dates uncertain]. ‘Icones’ — a roll of 35 mm slides (ca 1979), of which few exist, depicting 
ca 1500 paintings of butterflies by Jones ca 1780-1810 [The originals were donated to Oxford 
University around 1925-1933 by a descendant of William Jones]. Oxford University Museum 
of Natural History. [The specific images referred to here were evidently published prior to 
summer 1787: see Vane-Wright & Gaonkar, 2006, p. 297, and Vane-Wright, 2010.] 

Kirby, W.F. 1871.4 synonymic catalogue of the diurnal Lepidoptera. viii, 690 pp. Van Voorst, 
London. 

Larsen, T.B. 2003. The Emperor Swallowtails (Papilio hesperus Westwood, 1843 and P. 
horribilis Butler, 1874) in West Africa (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). Entomologists’ Record 
and Journal of Variation, 115: 189-192. 

Larsen, T.B. 2005. Butterflies of West Africa. 2 vols., 596 pp, 125 pls. Apollo Books, Stenstrup, 
Denmark. 

Moore, F. 1859. A Monograph of the genus Adolias, a genus of diurnal Lepidoptera belonging 
to the family Nymphalidae. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, New 
series, 5: 62-87. 

Munroe, E. [1961]. The classification of the Papilionidae (Lepidoptera). Canadian Entomolo- 
gist, Supplements, 17: 1-51. 

Scudder, S.H. 1875. Historical sketch of the generic names proposed for butterflies — a 
contribution to systematic nomenclature. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts 
and Sciences (Boston), 10: 91-293. 

Smith, C.R. & Vane-Wright, R.I. 2008. Classification, nomenclature and identification of lime 
swallowtail butterflies: a post-cladistic analysis (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Systematics 
and Biodiversity, 6(2): 175-203. 

Staudinger, O. 1891. Neue exotische Lepidopteren. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, Iris, 
4: 61-157. 

Vane-Wright, R.I. 2010. William Jones of Chelsea (1745-1818), and the need for a digital, 
online ‘Icones’. Antenna, 34 (1): 16-21. 

Vane-Wright, R.I. & Gaonkar, H. 2006. The Arhopala butterflies described by Fabricius: A. 
centaurus is from Java, A. democritus from Phuket (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Entomo- 
logical Science, 9: 295-311. 

Waterhouse, D.F. 1938. Notes on Jones’ Icones (Lepidoptera). With footnotes and appendix by 
Sir Edward Poulton. Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London (A), 13: 
9-17. 

Westwood, J.O. [1842-1843]. Arcana Entomologica; or illustrations of new, rare, and interesting 
species, vol. 1. iv, 192 pp. W. Smith, London. 

Westwood, J.O. [1846-1852]. In Doubleday, E. & Westwood, J.O. The genera of diurnal 
Lepidoptera, vol. 2. Pp. 251-534, pls. 31-80, Suppl. pl. Longman, Brown, Green & 
Longmans, London. 

Zakharov, E.V., Caterino, M.S. & Sperling, F.A.H. 2004. Molecular phylogeny, historical 
biogeography, and divergence time estimates for swallowtail butterflies of the genus 
Papilio (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Systematic Biology, 53: 193-215. 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 66: 204. 
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 


should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 19:7 


Case 3527 


Anguis jamaicensis Shaw, 1802 (currently Typhlops jamaicensis; 
Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation of the specific name 
by ruling that it is not to be treated as a replacement name for 

A. lumbricalis Linnaeus, 1758 (currently 7. lumbricalis) and the 
designation of neotypes for both taxa 


Michel Dominguez 


Centro Iberoamericano de la Biodiversidad (CIBIO), Universidad de 
Alicante, Edificio de Ciencias III, Campus San Vicente del Raspeig, 03080, 
Alicante, Spain (e-mail: micheldd@hotmail.es) 


Raul E. Diaz, Jr. 
University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS 66160, U.S.A. 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 78.1 of the Code, is to 
conserve the usage of the specific names Anguis lumbricalis Linnaeus, 1758 and 
Anguis jamaicensis Shaw, 1802 for two species of blind snake from the Caribbean. As 
published both taxa were composite and the name A. jamaicensis was a replacement 
for A. lumbricalis. The name Typhlops lumbricalis has consistently been used for a 
species from Cuba, Isla de Juventud and Bahamas, and T. jamaicensis is used for a 
species from Jamaica. A neotype is designated for 7. lumbricalis and it is proposed 
that a neotype be designated for T. jamaicensis in accord with accustomed usage. 
Typhlops lumbricalis is the type species of Typhlops Oppel, 1811, a genus with a 
distribution in Europe, Africa, Asia, Central and South America and some 140 
species. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Serpentes; TYPHLOPIDAE; Typhlops 
lumbricalis; Typhlops jamaicensis; blind snakes; West Indies; Bahamas; Cuba; 
Jamaica. 


1. Linnaeus (1758, p. 228) briefly described the blind snake Anguis lumbricalis: 
[middorsal scale count] ‘230-7, Color ex albido flavescens’ and stated that it occurred 
in America. Linnaeus did not mention this species in either of his accounts of 
specimens in the Swedish King Adolf Fredrik’s cabinet (1754 and 1764) and there are 
no specimens either in the King’s collection in the Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet in 
Stockholm or the Evolutionsmuseet, University of Uppsala. Furthermore, there are 
no specimens of this species among Linnaeus’s own material in Uppsala or in the 
Linnean Society’s collection in London. 

2. Linnaeus (1758) cited three earlier references: Seba (1734, p. 137, pl. 86, fig. 2), 
Browne (1756, p. 460, pl. 44, fig. 1), and Gronovius (1756, p. 52, no. 3). Under Article 
72.4.1 of the Code, these references form an integral part of Linnaeus’s description of 
Anguis lumbricalis and all the material on which the descriptions and/or illustrations 


198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


of the other authors were based is syntypic, whether or not it was examined by 
Linnaeus and whether or not it still exists. Linnaeus’s own description, those of the 
earlier authors cited by him and their specimens are all of equal status and together 
they constitute the basis on which the name is made available. 

3. Seba (1734, p. 137, no. 2, pl. 86, fig. 2) described his taxon as ‘cinereo luteus’ and 
provided an illustration; he did not, however, give scale counts or length measure- 
ments. His text was published in both Latin and Dutch and Latin and French. The 
Latin and Dutch versions record the species as ‘Caecilia, ex Mauritania’ and “Cecilia, 
a blinde slang van Mauretanié’, respectively. In the French version, however, the 
species was recorded as ‘Aveugle de la Nigritié’. The ‘Nigritié’ is a region that 
currently includes several West and Central African countries. In accordance with the 
distribution given by Seba and his illustration, his species could be a member of either 
the TYPHLOPIDAE or the LEPTOTYPHLOPIDAE. A correct identification is very difficult 
because the scalation pattern is not clear and there are no known specimens 
attributable to Seba. 

4. Browne (1756, p. 460, pl. 44, fig. 1) described a blind snake ‘Amphisbaena 
subargentea’ (silver snake) from Jamaica. He noted “This reptile seldom exceeds 
sixteen inches in length, and grows gradually thicker from the snout to the end of the 
tail; but the anus is placed so near this part both in this and some others of the same 
kind, that it has been frequently mistaken for the mouth, which has given rise to the 
name Amphisbaena, by which all the species are now commonly known’. In Browne’s 
illustration, the head scalation pattern is more detailed and his species is clearly that 
later called Anguis jamaicensis by Shaw (1802). Browne’s name Amphisbaena 
subargentea became available with the publication of the second edition of his work 
in 1789; the text is the same as in the first edition but in the index and figures he used 
binominal nomenclature. Browne’s (1789) work was suppressed in Opinion 89 
(December 1925) and placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in 
Zoological Nomenclature in Direction 32 (May 1956). Non-adoption of Browne’s 
names in the 19th century and suppression of his work at an early date are no doubt 
the reason why his names, including subargentea, have not been used by later authors. 

5. Gronovius (1756, p. 52, no. 3) described a specimen or specimens in his own 
collection. He gave the scale count (230 ventral scales and seven caudal scales), 
coloration (‘albido flavescens’) and lengths of the animals. The scale count and 
coloration were those later published by Linnaeus (1758). Unfortunately Gronovius 
did not illustrate any of the specimens that he had nor did he give their geographical 
provenance. Gronovius included references to Seba (1734, p. 137, pl. 86, fig. 2) and 
Browne (1756, p. 460, pl. 44, fig. 1). The Fish Section of the Natural History 
Museum, London, contains several specimens identified as Linnaean types which 
were included among Gronovius’s dried fish material bought along with his 
manuscript at auction in London in 1853 (Gtinther, 1859-1870; Wheeler, 1958). 
Unfortunately there was no reptile material in that collection (Colin McCarthy, 
NHM, London, pers. comm., April 2009). McDiarmid, Campbell & Touré (1999, p. 
108) incorrectly stated Gronovius’s specimen to be the ‘holotype’ of Anguis lumbri- 
calis. 

6. Linnaeus’s (1758) name Anguis lumbricalis has been used consistently for a 
species of blind snake found in Cuba, Isla de Juventud, and Bahamas but the taxon 
was composite when published. Thomas (1989) restricted the ‘type locality’ to New 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 199 


Providence Island in the Bahamas. In the absence of evidence that any of Seba’s 
(1734), Browne’s (1756), or Gronovius’s (1756) material came from there, and the 
absence of a neotype designated from there, this action was invalid. There is no 
extant syntype and we therefore designate a neotype. This is specimen KU 273756 (its 
sex was not identified) collected from 4 miles N and 0.5 miles E of Rock Sound 
(76° 11°02”N, 24°58°02”W, 20 m elevation, datum WGS 84), Eleuthera Island, 
Bahama Islands, on 7 October 1965 by Richard Thomas and housed at the 
University of Kansas Natural History Museum & Biodiversity Research Center, 
Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A. Of small size, measuring 119 mm snout-vent length (SVL), 
4 mm tail length (TL), 4.4 mm midbody diameter (MBD). No distinct neck/cervical 
region when viewed externally. Head is rounded in dorsal view, not dorsoventrally 
depressed, almost as long as broad (head width maximum/head length (HWM/HL) 
is 1.02); rounded snout in dorsal and lateral views; rostral in dorsal view like a narrow 
oval, slightly broader than long, total length of the dorsal rostral/widest part of the 
dorsal rostral (RWD/RLD) is 0.57, with slightly pointed apex, non-parallel sides and 
almost reaching interocular level, postnasal pattern weakly divergent. Single, sub- 
triangular preocular contacting the third supralabial only, two postoculars, two 
parietals and four supralabials with T-III imbrications pattern (Figs. 1A, 1B); 20 
scale rows anteriorly, reducing to 18 scale rows posteriorly at around midbody. Low 
middorsal scale counts (256), 13 ventrocaudals. Dorsum and venter colorations are 
dark brown and lighter brown (cream) in alcohol, respectively. Snout and head are 
pigmented. 

7. Shaw (1802, p. 588, pl. 133) described and illustrated the blind snake Anguis 
jamaicensis from Jamaica as a ‘silvery-brownish slow-worm, with the body gradually 
thickening, and the tail abruptly subacuminate’ (also described in Latin). He noted, 
‘The length of this species, according to Brown [sic], in his History of Jamaica, 
seldom exceeds sixteen inches, and the diameter of the animal gradually increases 
from the snout to the tail, which is extremely short, and terminates in a slightly 
pointed extremity: it is found about the roots of decayed trees, near ants’ nests, etc. 
and though popularly considered as poisonous, is entirely innocuous; its colour is a 
uniform pale brown, with a kind of silvery gloss on the scales, which are extremely 
smooth, resembling in some degree those of the scink [sic]’. Shaw cited three 
references: Amphisbaena subargentea. Silver snake. Brown[e], Jam[aica], p. 460, pl. 
44, fig. 1. Serpens Caecilia ex Mauritania Seba, 1, pl. 87, fig. 2 [recte pl. 86, fig. 2]. 
Anguis lumbricalis? Lin{naeus] Syst[ema] Nat[urae], p. 391. (This is the page reference 
in Edition 12, 1766). Shaw’s text is very similar to Browne’s description and, although 
the head scales are more visible in Shaw’s illustration than in Seba’s, the two figures 
are very similar. 

8. In the second edition of his work (para. 4 above), Browne (1789) used several 
question marks when he employed binominal nomenclature in the index and on 
figures, and Shaw (1802) gave new names to those of Browne’s names with question 
marks. Browne (1789) gave the name “Anguis lumbricalis? ’ to pl. 44, fig. 1, and listed 
‘Anguis lumbricoides?? (sic) in Index 4, p. xlvi, suggesting that his own species 
subargentea could possibly be synonymous with A. /umbricalis Linnaeus. In copying 
Browne’s description of the blind snake, Shaw (1802) also incorporated Browne’s 
question mark. Shaw cited Linnaeus (1766) and most of Linnaeus’s citations in his 
work, although he was often inconsistent and inaccurate in his use of references and 


200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


D 


Fig. 1. Dorsal and lateral views of the head scutellation (scale bar = 2 mm) in: A, B. Typhlops lumbricalis 
(KU 273756, neotype); C, D. Typhlops jamaicensis (KU 269908, specimen proposed as neotype). 


usually omitted citations of Gronovius that had been included by Linnaeus (Shaw 
may not have had easy access to a copy of Gronovius’s work). Shaw’s (1802) new 
nominal species was based on two of the references cited by Linnaeus (viz. Seba, 
1734; Browne, 1756) and the name jamaicensis could be considered a replacement 
name for /umbricalis. The name jamaicensis is the only one of the 17 replacement 
names proposed by Shaw (see Smith & David, 1999) still in current use. 

9. The herpetological community (for example, Gundlach, 1880; Boulenger, 1893; 
Barbour, 1901; 1914; Barbour & Ramsden, 1919) accepted the nomenclatural status 
of A. jamaicensis as discussed by Duméril & Bibron (1844, pp. 287-290). They later 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 201 


summarised the name /umbricalis and included two synonyms for it, subargentea and 
jamaicensis. They also noted that Shaw’s description and illustration were copies of 
Browne’s description and Seba’s illustration, respectively. Nevertheless, Cochran 
(1924) erroneously resurrected jamaicensis. She found that populations of the blind 
snake in Jamaica and Puerto Rico associated with the name T. /umbricalis differ in 
scutellation, pattern, and other characters from T. /umbricalis populations of the 
Bahamas, Cuba, and Hispaniola, meriting distinct species recognition. Cochran 
stated that Shaw’s description was based on the accounts of Browne and Seba, since 
Shaw himself questioned the reference to A. lumbricalis. She added that Linnaeus’s 
name was based on Gronovius’s description and, since Gronovius’s material had a 
low middorsal scale count, it was justifiable to apply the name /umbricalis only to 
blind snakes with 20 scale rows anteriorly and low middorsal scale row counts, which 
encompasses specimens from the Bahamas, Cuba and Hispaniola; thus Typhlops 
populations found in Puerto Rico and Jamaica must be called T. jamaicensis. 
However, in the absence of a lectotype or neotype designated for /umbricalis from the 
Bahamas, Cuba or Hispaniola, this statement was incorrect. 

10. The names have been used consistently for two distinct species, Typhlops 
lumbricalis from Cuba, Isla de Juventud, and the Bahamas with 237-329 middorsal 
scales, and T: jamaicensis from Jamaica with 379-448 middorsal scales (see, for 
example, Thomas, 1976; 1989; Dixon & Hendricks, 1979; Garrido & Jaume, 1984; 
Schwartz & Henderson, 1988; 1991; Wallach, 1998; Powell et al., 1996; Crombie, 
1999; Estrada & Ruibal, 1999; McDiarmid, Campbell & Touré, 1999; Dominguez 
& Moreno, 2003). Recently T. /umbricalis has been redescribed by Dominguez 
& Diaz (2011) as having 256-271 middorsal scales and being restricted to the 
Bahamas. A ruling is needed to separate the two names so that they can continue to 
be used for these two species, maintaining stability in the nomenclature. Currently 
there is no specimen of T. jamaicensis suitable for lectotype designation and we 
propose that a neotype be designated. This is specimen KU 269908 collected from 
St. James, 1 mile South of Reading (18°23’32”N, 77°51’35”W, 493 m elevation, 
datum WGS 84), Jamaica, on 25 July 1961 by Albert Schwartz (AS 15296). It is 
an adult male, medium sized, 262 mm SVL, 8 mm TL, 8.0 mm MBD. Lacks distinct 
cervical region. Head is slightly ogival in dorsal view, not dorsoventrally depressed, 
slightly broader than long, HWM/HL is 1.08; rounded in lateral view; broad rostral 
in dorsal view, almost broad as long, 0.81 RWD/RLD, curved-sided, slightly umbo, 
not flared on anterior apex, nearly parallel-sided midrostrally, with rounded 
posterior apex and not reaching interocular level, postnasal pattern strongly diver- 
gent; single subtriangular preocular contacting with third supralabial only, two 
postoculars, two parietals and four supralabials with T-III imbrication pattern (Figs. 
1C, 1D); 22 scale rows anteriorly, without reduction posteriorly, high middorsal scale 
counts (398), 10 ventrocaudals. Dorsum and venter colorations are dark brown and 
lighter brown (cream) in alcohol, respectively. Snout and head are pigmented. 

11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary power to rule that the specific name jamaicensis Shaw, 1802, 
as published in the binomen Anguis jamaicensis, is to be treated as the specific 
name of a newly proposed nominal species and not as a replacement name for 
Anguis lumbricalis Linnaeus, 1758; 


202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


(2) to designate specimen KU 269908 at the University of Kansas Natural History 
Museum & Biodiversity Research Center, Lawrence, KS, U.S.A., as the 
neotype of Anguis jamaicensis Shaw, 1802; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name jamaicensis 
Shaw, 1802, as published in the binomen Anguis jamaicensis and as defined by 
the neotype designated in (2) above. 


Acknowledgements 


We thank Sven Kullander (Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Stockholm), Colin McCarthy 
(The Natural History Museum, London) and Van Wallach (Museum of Comparative 
Zoology, Harvard University) for their assistance in trying to trace type material, Rafe 
Brown and Linda Trueb (University of Kansas Natural History Museum & Biodiversity 
Research Center) for access to Typhlops in the collection. First author is deeply grateful 
to Anthea Gentry (The Natural History Museum, London) for help in putting together 
this application. We are grateful to the anonymous reviewer for helpful remarks. 


References 


Barbour, T. 1901. Batrachia and Reptilia from the Bahamas. Bulletin of the Museum of 
Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, 46(3): 55-61. 

Barbour, T. 1914. A contribution to the zoogeography of the West Indies, with special 
reference to amphibians and reptiles. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at 
Harvard College, 44(2): 209-359, 1 plate. 

Barbour, T. & Ramsden, C.T. 1919. The herpetology of Cuba. Memoirs of the Museum of 
Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, 47(2): 71-213. 

Boulenger, G.A. 1893. Catalogue of the snakes in the British Museum (Natural History), vol. 1. 
xxvill, 448 pp. Taylor & Francis, London. 

Browne, P. 1756. The civil and natural history of Jamaica. viii, 503 pp., 49 pls. Patrick Browne, 
London. 

Browne, P. 1789. The civil and natural history of Jamaica, Ed. 2. viii, 503, [46] pp., 49 pls. 
Patrick Browne, London. 

Cochran, D.M. 1924. Typhlops lumbricalis and related forms. Journal of the Washington 
Academy of Sciences, 14(8): 174-177. 

Crombie, R.I. 1999. Jamaica. Pp. 63-92 in Crother, B.I. (Ed.), Caribbean amphibians and 
reptiles. Academic Press, London. 

Dixon, J.R., & Hendricks, F.S. 1979. The wormsnakes (family Typhlopidae) of the neotropics, 
exclusive of the Antilles. Zoologische Verhandelingen, 173: 1-39. 

Dominguez, M. & Diaz, R.E. 2011. Taxonomy of the blind snakes associated with Typhlops 
lumbricalis (Linnaeus, 1758) (Scolecophidia: Typhlopidae) from the Bahama Islands and 
Cuba. Herpetologica, 67(2): 194-211. 

Dominguez, M. & Moreno, L.V. 2003. Serpientes del suelo. Pp. 98-109, in Rodriguez Schettino, 
L. (Ed.), Anfibios y reptiles de Cuba. UPC Print, Vaasa. 

Dumeril, A.M.C. & Bibron, G. 1844. Erpétologie générale ou histoire naturelle complete des 
Reptiles. Comprenant lhistoire générale des Ophidiens, la description des genres et des 
espéces de serpent non venimeux . . ., vol. 6. xii, 610 pp., 14 pls. Librairie Encyclopédique 
de Roret, Paris. 

Estrada, A.R. & Ruibal, R. 1999. A review of Cuban herpetology. Pp. 31-62 in Crother, B.I. 
(Ed.), Caribbean amphibians and reptiles. Academic Press, London. 

Garrido, O.H. & Jaume, M.L. 1984. Catalogo descriptivo de los anfibios y reptiles de Cuba. 
Dofiana, Acta Vertebrata, 11(2): 5-128. 

Gronovius, L.T. 1756. Museum ichthyologicum, sistens piscium indigenorum and quorundam 
exoticorum, qui in Museo Laurentii Theodori Gronovii adservantur, descriptiones ordine 
systematico ..., vol. 2. x, 88 pp., 7 pls. Theodor Haak, Leiden. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 203 


Gundlach, J. C. 1880. Contribucion a la erpetologia cubana, 99 pp. Imprenta de G. Montiel y 
C*, La Habana. 

Ginther, A. 1859-1870. Catalogue of fishes in the British Museum, vol. 1-8. London. 

Linnaeus, C. 1754. Hans Maj-:ts Adolf Frideriks var allernddigste konungs naturalie samling 
innehdallande séillsynte och fradmmande djur, som bevaras pd kongl. lust-slottet Ulriksdahl. . . 
Xxx, 96 pp, [7] pp, 33 pls. Salvii, Holmiae. 

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 338 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 

Linnaeus, C. 1764. Museum S:e@ R:e M-tis Adolphi Friderici Regis Svecorum, Gothorum, 
Vandalorumque ..., vol. 2. 110 pp, [1] pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 

Linnaeus, C. 1766. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1. 532 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 

McDiarmid, R.W., Campbell, J.A. & Touré, T.A. 1999. Snake species of the world: A taxonomic 
and geographic reference, vol. 1. xi, 511 pp. Herpetologists’ League, Washington, D. C. 

Oppel, M. 1811. Die ordnungen, familien und gattungen der reptilien, als prodrom einer 
naturgeschichte derselben. xii, 87 pp. Lindauer, Munich. 

Powell, R., Henderson, R.W., Adler, K., & Dundee, H.A. 1996. An annotated checklist of West 
Indian amphibians and reptiles. Pp. 51-93, 8 pls. in Powell, R., & Henderson, R.W. (Eds.), 
Contributions to West Indian herpetology. A tribute to Albert Schwartz. Society for the 
Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Ithaca. 

Schwartz, A., & Henderson, R.W. 1988. West Indian amphibians and reptiles: A checklist. 
Milwaukee Public Museum Contributions in Biology and Geology, 74: 1-264. 

Schwartz, A., & Henderson, R.W. 1991. Amphibians and reptiles of the West Indies. Descrip- 
tions, distributions, and natural history. xvi, 720 pp. University of Florida Press, 
Gainesville. 

Seba, A. 1734. Locupletissimi rerum nturalium Thesauri... , vol. 1. 178 pp., 121 pls. 
Wetstenium, Gul Smith & Janssonio-Waesbergios, Amsterdam. 

Shaw, G. 1802. General zoology, or systematic natural history, vol. 3 (Amphibia), part 2. vii, 302 
pp. Kearsley, London. 

Smith, H.M., & David, P. 1999. George Shaw and the herpetology volume in his series, general 
zoology. Pp. 5—96 in Adler, K. (Ed.), George Shaw’s general zoology or systematic natural 
history. Volume III — Amphibians and reptiles. Society for the Study of Amphibians and 
Reptiles, Ithaca. 

Thomas, R. 1976. Systematics of the Antillean blind snakes of the genus Typhlops (Serpentes: 
Typhlopidae). Ph. D. Dissertation, Louisiana State University, Louisiana. 

Thomas, R. 1989. The relationships of Antillean Typhlops (Serpentes: Typhlopidae) and the 
description of three new Hispaniolan species. Pp. 409-432 in Woods, C.A. (Ed.), 
Biogeography of the West Indies: Past, present and future. Sandhill Crane Press, 
Gainesville. 

Wallach, V. 1998. The visceral anatomy of blindsnakes and wormsnakes and its systematic 
implications (Serpentes: Anomalepididae, Typhlopidae, Leptotyphlopidae). Ph.D. Disser- 
tation, Northeastern University of Boston, Massachusetts. 

Wheeler, A.C. 1958. The Gronovius fish collection: A catalogue and historical account. 
Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Historical Series, 1(5): 185-249. 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 197. 


Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


Comment on the proposed conservation of Haliplanella Hand, 1956 (Anthozoa, 
Actinaria) by suppression of Haliplanella Treadwell, 1943 (Polychaeta) 
(Case 3493; see BZN 66: 312-316; 67: 166-167) 


Daphne Gail Fautin 


Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and Natural History Museum and 
Biodiversity Institute, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, U.S.A. 
(e-mail: fautin@ku.edu) 


Marymegan Daly 


Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology, The Ohio State 
University, 1315 Kinnear Road, Columbus, OH 43212, U.S.A. 
(e-mail: daly.66@osu.edu) 


We respond to den Hartog & Ates (BZN 67: 166-167) who commented on our appeal 
(BZN 66: 312-316) to resolve a homonymy by suppressing the name Haliplanella 
Treadwell, 1943 (for a polychaete annelid) in favour of the name Haliplanella Hand, 
1956 (for an actiniarian — a sea anemone). Most of the comments by den Hartog & 
Ates (BZN 67: 166-167) relate to taxonomy, not nomenclature. We reiterate our 
conviction that both taxonomy and nomenclature would best be served by the action 
we request. 

We disagree with the assertion that “The introduction by Hand (1956) of the genus 
Haliplanella and of the family HALIPLANELLIDAE was exclusively based on the assumed 
presence of a combination of three types of nematocysts in the acontia’ (den Hartog 
& Ates, BZN 67: 166). Hand (1956), having observed three types of nematocysts from 
the acontia, illustrated them — he did not merely assume they were present. In 
addition, he included in the diagnosis of Diadumene the ability to develop catch 
tentacles (now commonly termed ‘fishing tentacles’), omitting mention of catch 
tentacles in the diagnosis of Haliplanella. Hand (1956) thereby implied that individ- 
uals belonging to the genus Haliplanella do not form catch tentacles, a distinction he 
explicitly stated (personal communication to DGF) as part of his conceptualising the 
genera (although we now know that that feature does not, in fact, differentiate them). 
The matter raised by den Hartog & Ates (BZN 67: 166) concerning the existence (or 
not) of a well-marked fosse and parapet was not considered by Hand (1956) and does 
not bear on this matter. 

As is acknowledged by den Hartog & Ates (BZN 67: 166), assignment of the type 
species of Haliplanella, Sagartia luciae Verrill, 1898, to the genus Diadumene is not 
original to them (in a manuscript cited as in press). Indeed, we stated in our appeal 
(66: 313) that the animal that ‘is the most widespread species of anemone in the 
world’ has been ‘variously known as Haliplanella luciae, H. lineata, Diadumene luciae 
or D. lineata.’ An extensive list of the names used for this species, which is available 
online from Fautin (2009), includes several uses of the name Haliplanella during the 
past 2-3 years. This belies the assertion by den Hartog & Ates (BZN 67: 166) that 
‘The recent proposal to conserve the name Haliplanella by Fautin et al. [BZN 66: 
312-316] will serve no purpose.’ In fact, people continue to use the name, so resolving 
the homonymy would benefit the community. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 205 


As we pointed out (Fautin et al. BZN 66: 314), because the name Haliplanella 
Treadwell, 1943 is no longer used for the annelid, suppressing it will not cause 
hardship to any biologist. In addition to resolving a homonymy that exists 
irrespective of taxonomic considerations, placing on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology the name Haliplanella Hand, 1956 will be a positive step; it will not 
put the name Tricnidactis errans de Oliveira Pires, 1987 in a nomenclaturally 
ambiguous situation pending taxonomic resolution of its affinities. That sea anemone 
was placed by its describer in the family HALIPLANELLIDAE. Although den Hartog & 
Ates, (BZN 67: 167) ‘think 7. errans belongs to another family,’ they ‘have not been 
able to study this species.’ In discussing it, they raise taxonomic issues not directly 
germane to the nomenclatural basis of our appeal, including the philosophical 
position that ‘Species descriptions should not be based on a single isolated character’ 
(BZN 67: 167). 


Additional reference 


Fautin, D.G. 2009. Hexacorallians of the World. http://geoportal.kgs.ku.edu/hexacoral/ 
anemone2/index.cfm (Accessed 22 July 2011) 


Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of Murex tubercularis Montagu, 
1803 (currently Cerithiopsis tubercularis; Mollusca, Gastropoda, CERITHIOPSIDAE) by 
designation of a neotype 

(Case 3532; BZN 68: 41-46) 


Riccardo Giannuzzi Savelli 
Via Mater Dolorosa, 54, 90146 Palermo, Italy (e-mail: malakos@tin.it) 


Francesco Pusateri 
Via Castellana, 64, 90135 Palermo, Italy (e-mail: francesco@pusateri.it) 


We strongly support the application of Cecalupo and Robba and we fully agree with 
their well presented considerations. 


Comment on the proposed conservation of Termes serratus Froggatt, 1898 and 
Termes serrula Desneux, 1904 (Insecta, Isoptera, TERMITINAE) 
(Case 3385: see BZN 64: 83-86, 185-187; 65: 47-49, 132-136; 66: 342-348) 


Yoko Takematsu 
Faculty of Agriculture, Yamaguchi University, 1677-1 Yoshida, 
Yamaguchi 753-8515, Japan (e-mail: takematu@yamaguchi-u.ac.jp) 


I’ve read Jones’s proposal and all the subsequent comments. I realise the decision of 
Roisin & Pasteels (2000) was strictly correct. However as a taxonomic researcher of 
termites in Southeast Asia, I wish to conserve the scientific name Microcerotermes 
serratus (Froggatt) as an Australian species and Microcerotermes serrula (Desneux) 


206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


as a Southeast Asian species. From my fieldwork I know that M. serrula (Desneux) 
is common and widespread across Sundaland. Also, the soldiers have very distinctive 
characters and are easily identified using the standard texts (Thapa, 1981 and Tho, 
1992). As a consequence, I have seen many series of this species labeled as M. serrula 
in termite collections in museums, government forestry departments and universities 
in Malaysia, and the same is probably true of Indonesian institutions in Kalimantan, 
Sumatra and Java. It is clear that many people including non-termitologist re- 
searchers and government officers have used the name M. serrula (Desneux) for the 
Southeast Asian species. Evans (BZN 66: 343) was correct when he mentioned that 
this name had been used not only in scientific publications but also in multiple 
government reports about forestry and biodiversity. If the name is not conserved, 
then to avoid confusion a large number of specimens deposited in various institutions 
would have to be re-labeled as M. serratus, or people who access these specimens 
would have to be aware of the name change. I therefore support the views of Jones 
(BZN 64: 83-86) and Evans (BZN 66: 342-346). 


Comments on the proposed establishment of availability of Balintus d’Abrera, 2001, 
Gulliveria d’Abrera & Balint, 2001, Salazaria d’Abrera & Balint, 2001, Megathecla 
Robbins, 2002 and Gullicaena Balint, 2002 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, LYCAENIDAE) 
(Case 3458; see BZN 65: 188-193, 66: 271-272, 66: 349-351) 


(1) Zsolt Balint 


Hungarian Natural History Museum, Baross utca 13, Budapest VIII, H-1088, 
Hungary (e-mail: balint@nhmus.hu) 


Bernard d’Abrera 


137 Ridge Road, Mount Dandenong, Victoria, 3767, Australia 
(e-mail: bfly@clara.co.uk) 


1. We are convinced that our original descriptions of taxa described in d’Abrera 
(2001) have been misinterpreted by the applicants in Case 3458. All the eight generic 
names we proposed, but which were questioned by the applicants, have been 
correctly established in a proper and scientific manner, and thus they have incontro- 
vertibly become available for zoological nomenclature. Our wording closely adheres 
to the Articles of the Code. 

2. The descriptions of all the genera proposed by us in d’Abrera (2001) appeared 
under appropriate headings, each having the newly proposed generic names in bold 
capital letters with bold typeface and indicated as ‘gen. nov.’. The first entry after 
each heading clearly established the particular “Type Species’ for the proposed genus, 
stating (as required by the Code) the name of the selected taxon in its original 
combination. The next paragraph in logical sequence listed those morphological 
characters that we have used to diagnose the proposed genus through its selected type 
species. 

3. Contrary to the claim of the applicants, this action is not ambiguous. In 
providing a description of the characters existing on the type species as the standard 
representative of the proposed genus, we are strictly following the requirements of 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 207 


the Code. We have already pre-indicated in the heading in bold capital letters the 
putative taxon to be diagnosed. Thus it is a clear statement that the subject is the 
genus novum and not the type species. 

4. The final entry in the text, with the unambiguous subheading “Congeners’ 
further places all the taxa we considered to be encompassed by the new genus in their 
new combinations with the bold typeface indicating ‘comb. nov.’, which means that 
this is a new combination of specific and generic epithets, the species being well 
established, but the genus now being established as a nomenclatural novelty in 
combination with it. 

5. Although we think it is unnecessary to have to explain our precise wording, we 
now do this to balance the inaccurate explanations of the applicants who have 
brought Case 3458 for their own purposes. We use the most discussed genus 
Annamaria as an example. 

6. Article 13.1.1 states that a name is available when it is accompanied by a 
description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to 
differentiate the taxon. The heading of our nomenclatural (proposing a new name) 
and taxonomic (to describe and to define a new taxon) action clearly states the sole 
subject of the paragraph: that is “GENus ANNAMARIA d’Abrera & Balint gen. nov.’ 
the name and the taxon, which is to be established and differentiated in the 
subsequent entry. It is accompanied by a description stating in words the use of 
certain characters of the type species, which is the objective standard of the genus. 
Therefore there is (a) a new genus-group name proposed, (b) a description which 
states in words that these are characters of the type species (the objective standard of 
the genus), which define the taxon (the new genus) and (c) help to differentiate the 
taxon from the previously described ones. 

7. The applicants have artificially constructed a situation in which the proposed 
name Annamaria is a nomen nudum, because (they imply) there is no description or 
definition of the name itself, thereby rendering it unavailable for any nomenclatural 
action. If the sole subject of our taxonomic and nomenclatural action was to be 
simply the type species in vacuo, then the heading “GENUS ANNAMARIA d’Abrera & 
Balint gen. nov.’ would be nonsense. Hence, to render the name unavailable the 
applicants coined the phrase ‘implied grammatical subject’ for our sentences, which 
they chose to interpret accordingly. This distorted an otherwise straightforward 
nomenclatural and taxonomic action and obscured what we originally presented, 
which was a correct, comprehensive but economic taxonomic description of the genus 
Annamaria gen. nov. 

8. By using such a distortion it becomes only too easy to question not only the 
availablity of the names we proposed, but many previously established names by 
other authors. For instance, the genera Famegana Eliot, 1973, Rysops Eliot, 1973, 
Titea Eliot, 1973, and Zintha Eliot, 1973, taken from one of the most fundamental 
works ever published on LYCAENIDAE classification (Eliot, 1973), would also be 
rendered unavailable as well. The descriptions of the mentioned names established by 
Eliot were worded in an almost identical manner to the questioned generic names 
published in d’Abrera (2001); but interestingly none of these names have been 
considered to be unavailable by the applicants (Lamas, 2008a). 

9. We maintain that our ‘interpretation’ is sound and in logical union with the 
heading, the meaning and the intention of the text. It is only ambiguous in the eyes 


208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


of the composers of the case; there are no semantic grounds to justify their ‘implied 
grammatical subject’. The meaning of d’Abrera & Balint is given expressly in the 
heading: ‘In NEOTROPICAL VII:1107 [genus ANNAMARIA d’Abrera & Balint 
gen. nov. was] treated as Evenus draudti [with congeners]. Likewise by other workers. 
However [GENus ANNAMARIA @Abrera & Balint gen. nov.] is distinguished from 
Evenus by shorter cell of f.w. (1/3rd of costal length), and extension of Vein 1 of 
h.w. into a lobed tail at tornus. [c¢ENus ANNAMARIA d’Abrera & Balint gen. nov. 
has a] compound androconial patch on male f.w. consisting of single circle within 
cell & quadrifurcate patch immediately outside discocellulars. Further, [GENus 
ANNAMARIA @Abrera & Balint gen. nov. has] androconial patches on post discal 
& submarginal tornal areas of f.w. respectively.’ 

10. In the Code there is nothing to indicate that the characters of the selected type 
species could be regarded as anything but characteristic of the genus which it was 
deliberately chosen to represent. Nor does the Code indicate that describing other 
characters only present in the congeners would somehow be necessary to make the 
proposed name available from a nomenclatural point of view. Moreover, we make an 
historical note that our concept of Annamaria (in d’Abrera, 2001; Balint, 2005) was 
still partly divergent from that of Robbins’ Lamasina (Robbins, 2004b), but later the 
applicants came to similar conclusions (Robbins & Lamas, 2008). This objectively 
demonstrates that the original definition of the genus Annamaria was sound in spite 
of the criticism of the applicants. 

11. Therefore we maintain that the establishment of all of our new genera could not 
have been composed in a more straightforward way and that we did this in 
accordance with the Code. Interested readers can check all of our claims in the pages 
of the Concise Atlas of the Butterflies of the World (d’ Abrera, 2001; there is a generic 
index), or consult the Fig. 3. of Balint (2005), which is a facsimile of the original 
description of the genus Annamaria d’Abrera & Balint, 2001 and compare our style 
and wording with those of Eliot (1973) and judge for themselves whether there are 
objective grounds or genuine need by the applicants for bringing such a case in the 
first place. 

12. Expressing the need to correct some nomenclature for a yet-to-be-published 
manuscript, one of the applicants (Robbins, 2002) preferred the forgotten, homony- 
mous and therefore unavailable name Eucharia Boisduval, 1870, which was briefly 
and inadequately described. Moreover, the type species for that genus was only 
subsequently designated through a corrective nomenclatural procedure. The name 
Annamaria was published with a designation of a type species and clearly listed 
generic characters, and is therefore preferable. Hence, Annamaria should at least have 
been cited objectively by the applicants: consequently it must be applied. In contrast, 
for the unavailable name Eucharia, one of the applicants proposed Lamasina, 
although he had clearly demonstrated that he was well aware of the existence of the 
name Annamaria, a senior synonym (Robbins, 2002). This applicant failed to use the 
name in such manner, instead considering it subjectively unavailable (Robbins, 2004; 
Robbins & Lamas, 2008; see Balint, 2009, 2010). 

13. The same applicant correctly replaced the junior homonym Guilliveria d’Abrera 
& Balint, 2001 with Megathecla Robbins, 2002 but that applicant made no attempt 
to contact either of us to inform us that the homonym Guiliveria was in need of 
replacement, as recommended by the Code of Ethics. The other names in the case 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 209 


were not considered to be unavailable at that time, but this concept has since been 
reversed in the eumaeine checklist compiled by one of the applicants (Robbins, 
2004b) for a book edited by the other applicant (Lamas, 2004). This was finally 
crystallised in Case 3458 and subsequent joint papers of the applicants (see Balint, 
2009). 

14. The applicant working on a checklist of neotropical butterflies did contact one 
of us (Dr Balint) in early 2002 when the nomenclatural note written by his colleague 
(the other applicant) had most probably already been printed, or was in the last 
stages of preparation for press. It was only at that late moment that the applicant first 
drew the attention of Balint to Gulliveria being homonymous, but did not mention 
that his colleague’s paper (Robbins, 2002) had already been submitted. This again 
appears counter to the ethical recommendations in the Code. Meanwhile, Balint’s 
(2002) paper with the replacement name Gullicaena Balint was written, submitted, 
accepted and published on November 30 2002, with no knowledge of the other 
submission on the subject. Therefore the publication date of Megathecla Robbins 
(26 June 2002) indeed preceded that of the replacement name Gullicaena Balint, 2002 
by five months, though we maintain this was not executed in a manner concordant 
with the ethical recommendations of the Code. 

15. We feel this lack of communication was indicative of an uncooperative attitude 
among workers on Neotropical eumaine lycaenids, expressed in a paper authored by 
one of the applicants (Robbins, 2004a) and published in a book edited by the other 
applicant (Lamas, 2004). In the application to the Commission, the taxonomic 
descriptions in d’Abrera’s (2001) book (which was the first modern taxonomic 
overview of Neotropical eumaeines) are, in our opinion, misinterpreted and the 
availability of new names is incorrectly questioned. 

16. One applicant recently published a paper in which he proposed twelve 
species-group replacement names in the family LYCAENIDAE as part of his work on 
butterfly nomenclature on a global scale (Lamas, 2008b). Appropriately, most of his 
new names honour the authors of the junior homonyms or the collector, or refer to 
the geographic localities of the taxa. However, two homonyms, namely Plebejus 
(Plebejides) pylaon forsteri Balint, 1990, and Albulina tibetana dAbrera, 1993, 
received the replacement names that cause us to question if this was an inappropriate 
test of the boundaries of point 4 of the Code of Ethics (‘no author shall propose a 
name ...that would be likely to give offence on any grounds’). The name proposed 
to replace forsteri is tumultus (confusion), while the name proposed to replace 
tibetana 1s chaos (disorder). We respectfully suggest that it was only through 
publishing Case 3458 that the authors have created tumult and confusion for these 
names themselves. We also underscore that, had the authors adhered to point 3 of the 
Code of Ethics, we, as authors of these names, would have been happy to establish 
appropriate substitute names. 

17. If this application were to be upheld, the Commission would permit a 
destabilising situation in which any nomenclaturist or taxonomist might feel justified 
in attempting to dismiss other publications with no objective justification, and would 
undermine the need to apply to the plenary powers of the Commission to suppress 
many names. Any paragraph with economic wording purporting to describe taxa 
would be at risk. The sense or meaning of a taxon would be at the mercy of 
manipulative grammatical or syntactic interpretation, determined by the agenda of 


210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


the revisor, who could apply his subjective interpretation of the ‘purpose’ of any 
original text. 

18. We have concerns that one of the authors of this Case is also in a position to 
vote on its outcome. We request that the Commission consider the ethical justifica- 
tion if this vote is a deciding factor in the outcome of the Case. 

19. In short, Case 3458, if upheld by the Commission, would create tumult and 
chaos and undermine the main brief of the Code, which is the stability of scientific 
nomenclature. 


Additional references 


Balint, Zs. 2009. Five chapters on Annamaria columbia with the description of a new genus 
(Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae: Eumaeini). Boletin Cientifico Centro de Museos, Museo 
Historia Natural, Caldas, 13: 75-82. 

Balint, Zs. 2010. Microscopic observations and notes on wing scaling in Annamaria d’Abrera 
& Balint, and further notes on the genus (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae: Theclinae). Lepidop- 
tera Novae, 3: 29-40. 

Eliot, J.N. 1973. The higher classification of the Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera): a tentative 
arrangement. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Entomology), 28(6): 
371-505. 

Lamas, G. 2008a. Genera and genus-group names of the butterflies of the world (revised 4 Feb 
2008) — 4,739 names. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/gbn/ (accessed: 23.VII.2011). 

Lamas, G. 2008b. Twelve new species-group replacement names and further nomenclatural 
notes on Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera). Zootaxa, 1848: 47-56. 

Robbins, R.K. 2004a. Introduction to the Checklist of Eumaeini (Lycaenidae), pp. xxiv—xxx in 
Lamas, G. (Ed.), Checklist: Part 4A. Hesperioidea — Papilionoidea. In Heppner, J.B. 
(Ed.), Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera, vol. 5A. 439 pp. Association for Tropical 
Lepidoptera; Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, Florida. 

Robbins, R.K. 2004b. Lycaenidae. Theclinae. Tribe Eumaeini, pp. 118-137 in Lamas, G. (Ed.), 
Checklist: Part 4A. Hesperioidea — Papilionoidea. In Heppner, J.B. (Ed.), Atlas of 
Neotropical Lepidoptera, vol. 5A. 439 pp. Association for Tropical Lepidoptera; Scientific 
Publishers, Gainesville, Florida. 


(2) Brian J. Craig 
4 Clayhill Crescent, London SE9 4JB, U.K. (e-mail: brian.amoria@googlemail.com) 


This proposal should be rejected for the following reasons: 

Any description of a new genus which contains the words ‘is differentiated by’ or 
an equivalent phrase, followed by a series of anatomical characters must be construed 
as purporting to differentiate the genus. Article 13.1.1 of the Code only requires that 
an author states characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon, not that the 
characters are diagnostic, nor that the differentiation is perfect, as long as the 
statement is purported to do so. It is not for Robbins or Lamas to decide what 
d’Abrera & Balint (in d’Abrera, 2001) purported, any more than it is appropriate for 
others to draw conclusions about Robbins & Lamas’s motives in lodging this 
application. It is common sense to assume that d’Abrera & Balint purported to do 
what they were required to do, i.e. differentiate their new genera. 

Although the wording of the description of Annamaria (and the implication of its 
one missing word) has often been quoted as an example in this debate, the other seven 
new genera proposed by d’Abrera & Balint (in d’Abrera, 2001) were each introduced 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 211 


using slightly different wording. For this reason these names can not be rejected in 
bulk, as requested in this application. Each one should be examined on its own merits 
and ruled on individually. 

Robbins & Lamas (BZN 66: 349-351) have repeatedly claimed that this action is 
being taken only in the interests of stability and universality, which d’Abrera & Balint 
(in d’Abrera, 2001) apparently ‘breached’ in some way by describing eight new 
genera, that nobody has yet questioned with regard to the soundness of the concepts 
involved. There was no instability or confusion in 2001 when these were described. 
All the problems that have ensued were initiated by Robbins (2002) when he 
unilaterally declared the name Annamaria unavailable. The only confusion now is 
whether this genus should be known by its senior name of Annamaria dAbrera & 
Balint Gin d’Abrera, 2001) or by its later subjective synonym Lamasina Robbins, 
2002. 

For reasons that the applicants have never fully explained, the Commission 1s 
being asked to make five (supposedly unavailable) names available, two of which are 
to be immediately suppressed and thus made unavailable, along with six others, five 
of which have barely been discussed in the application and appear to represent taxa 
for which there would then be no alternative generic names. The two names proposed 
by Robbins (2002) are conspicuous among the four survivors of this nomenclatural 
massacre. The rejection of this proposal would confirm that all eight generic names 
are available from their original descriptions. 


Comment on the proposed designation of a neotype for the nominal species 
Chionobas chryxus Doubleday, 1849 (currently Oeneis chryxus; Insecta, 
Lepidoptera, NYMPHALIDAE) 

(Case 3495; see BZN 67: 121-128; 68: 136-140) 


James A. Scott 


60 Estes Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80226-1254 U.S.A. 
(e-mail: JameScott@juno.com) 


There is clear evidence that there are two separate species throughout the Rocky 
Mountains. I personally collected altacordillera in Alberta at Nigel Pass and 
Highwood Pass. Charles Harp and Steve Kohler collected numerous a/tacordillera in 
Montana, the former’s specimens now in the University of Colorado museum. 
Specimens in that museum show both species fly together in the Wind River Mts. of 
Wyoming. Paul M. Thompson and David Threatful collected a/tacordillera at Gott 
Peak in British Columbia, and Norbert Kondla found it on Mt. Spieker. In NE 
Nevada altacordillera occurs in the Snake Range, while the other species has been 
found in the Egan Range. The two species are sympatric at 20 known locations 
throughout the Rocky Mountains. And I recently (Scott, 2008) found that larvae of 
altacordillera (including two subspecies from Washington and Ontario) have a 
different coloration and usually have a dashed heart-band on larvae, compared to the 
species depicted in the original chryxus painting which has a solid heart-band. No 
known butterfly has subspecies with oviposition behaviour as different as these two 
Oeneis taxa have. The problem here is that it takes time for people to learn how to 


212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


identify new similar taxa, and not all lepidopterists have acquired those skills. 
Difficulty of identification is nothing new: four species of Phyciodes (NYMPHALIDAE) 
and seven of Celastrina (LYCAENIDAE) are now known in eastern United States, up 
from two and one a few decades ago, and most lepidopterists still cannot identify 
those. Females are not as good as males for identification in Oeneis chryxus-group 
species: O. nevadensis and O. macouni females are almost identical while the males are 
very different, and O. alberta females often resemble O. ‘chryxus’ females. 

The ICZN governs nomenclature, not taxa, so squabbling about limits of taxa is 
largely irrelevant. It is enough to state that the people who have carefully studied 
these taxa think there are several taxa in Alberta, and a neotype is needed because the 
lectotype has dubious taxon identity and disputable locality. 

I had thought that the proposed chryxus neotype would be acceptable to other 
lepidopterists, as it comes from the Alberta location that people generally cite as the 
type locality, and it matches the phenotype of the original painting. Surely it is 
preferable to stabilise nomenclature before a large body of literature using confused 
names accumulates, rather than after. However, from a biological viewpoint, the 
optimal neotype should come from an area where the biology of both species has 
been well studied (Colorado), and the biology of these butterflies is little known in 
Alberta. I was informed that the Commission can render an Opinion on this case in 
multiple ways, so to satisfy the doubters and permit an optimal neotype, the best way 
would be for the Commission not to designate a neotype, and either merely affirm 
that the wording of Articles 72.4.1 and 72.4.1.1 of the Code is not a mistake, or make 
no decision at all on the case. As written, Article 72.4.1.1 is numbered and indented 
as subservient to 72.4.1; therefore 72.4.1.1 allows one to consider specimens not 
mentioned in the original publication as part of the type series, only if those 
specimens belong to the taxon defined by the original publication. This interpretation 
prevents the worst calamity that can befall a lectotype (a lectotype that proves to 
belong to a taxon different from that defined in the original publication), therefore 
the writing in the 4th edition of the Code is a considerable improvement over the 3rd 
edition. When this case was reviewed prior to publication, two Commissioners agreed 
with this restrictive interpretation of Articles 72.4.1 and 72.4.1.1, which with Article 
86.3 invalidates the lectotype, and wrote that I could just designate a neotype without 
petitioning the Commission. So the absence of an Opinion on this case would satisfy 
doubters and would permit an optimal neotype, although a statement that the 
wording is not a mistake would contribute to John Calhoun’s request for clarification 
of this Article. 

Even if the original male chryxus were found, it would be considered merely a 
useless paralectotype by anyone who thinks the lectotype is valid. Also, Article 73.1 
clearly confirms that the male illustrated in the original publication is the holotype, 
and Article 73.1.2 states that evidence outside the work may be taken into account to 
help identify that specimen — any other conspecific specimens found would be 
paratypes, not syntypes. 


Additional reference 


Scott, J.A. 2008. Early stages of Oeneis calais altacordillera Scott (plate V). Pp. 25—29, pl. 5 and 
pl. 5 continued, in Scott, J. & Fisher, M.S. Geographic variation and new taxa of western 
North American butterflies, especially from Colorado. Papilio (New Series), 18:1—72. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 243 


Comments on Stegosaurus Marsh, 1877 (Dinosauria, Ornithischia): proposed 
replacement of the type species with Stegosaurus stenops Marsh, 1887 
(Case 3536; see BZN 68: 127-133) 


(1) Susannah C. R. Maidment 


Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, 
London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: s.maidment@nhm.ac.uk) 


In Case 3536, Galton outlined the taxonomic history of the iconic dinosaur genus 
Stegosaurus. In this Case, Galton asked the Commission to designate Stegosaurus 
stenops as type species of the genus Stegosaurus, thereby allowing the holotype 
specimen of Stegosaurus stenops, USNM 4934, to become the representative of the 
genus Stegosaurus. 

The Case is complicated by the fact that those who have worked on the taxonomy 
of Stegosaurus do not agree about the taxonomic validity of various genera and 
species, as clearly outlined by Galton. In Case 3536 Galton suggested that the type 
specimen of Stegosaurus armatus (YPM 1850), which is the type species of Stego- 
saurus, bears no synapomorphies of Stegosaurus or autapomorphies of its own, 
making the name Stegosaurus armatus a nomen dubium. However, Mossbrucker et 
al. (2009) have suggested that YPM 1850 may bear an autapomorphy, making the 
name Stegosaurus armatus valid. 

If YPM 1850 is undiagnostic, the generic name Stegosaurus is a nomen dubium. If 
YPM 1850 is diagnostic, as has been tentatively suggested by Mossbrucker et al. 
(2009), the name Stegosaurus armatus would likely be restricted to YPM 1850 
because, as argued by Galton in the Case, YPM 1850 bears no other synapomorphies 
of Stegosaurus (in its current usage); thus all other material currently referred to the 
genus Stegosaurus would need a new generic name. Hypsirhophus discursus was 
named by Cope (1878) for a partial dorsal vertebra (AMNH 5731). Galton (2010) 
considered this specimen to be diagnostic and Hypsirhophus a distinct genus although 
for Maidment et al. (2008) and Maidment (2010) Hypsirhophus is the next available 
nominal genus to contain all other species of stegosaur formerly included in 
Stegosaurus. 

Stegosaurus is one of the most iconic and most recognisable dinosaurs to both the 
public and scientists alike; the loss of the name Stegosaurus is therefore an 
unfavourable outcome. 

Maidment et al. (2008) suggested that all stegosaur material from the Morrison 
Formation of the USA belonged to a single species (except for material described as 
Hesperosaurus mjosi by Carpenter et al. [2001]). Maidment et al. (2008) named this 
species Stegosaurus armatus, but diagnostic characters were based on a referred 
specimen, USNM 4934, the holotype of Stegosaurus stenops, which Maidment et al. 
(2008) considered to be a junior synonym of Stegosaurus armatus. Designating 
Stegosaurus stenops as the type species of Stegosaurus results in USNM 4934 being 
the specimen on which Stegosaurus is based. This is entirely appropriate because 
USNM 4934 is one of the most complete stegosaurs known from anywhere in the 
world, and the specimen has been used as the reference specimen against which other 
stegosaurs are compared since a detailed and definitive description of it was 


214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


published (Gilmore, 1914). This is entirely in keeping with the work of Maidment 
et al. (2008), because USNM 4934 was used as the reference specimen in that work. 

As Galton has argued in the Case, it is more favourable to designate Stegosaurus 
stenops as the type species of Stegosaurus than to make USNM 4934 the type 
specimen of Stegosaurus armatus, because of the questions surrounding the presence 
or absence of diagnostic characters in the holotype of Stegosaurus armatus. By 
designating a new type species for Stegosaurus, problems of taxonomy relating to 
YPM 1850 are circumvented. I therefore fully support the proposal by Galton in 
Case 3536. 


(2) Kenneth Carpenter 


Prehistoric Museum, 155 East Main Street, Price, UT 84501, U.S.A. 
(e-mail: Ken.Carpenter@usu.edu) 


The taxon Stegosaurus armatus was established by O.C. Marsh in 1877 on a very 
fragmentary specimen from the Morrison Formation near Morrison, Colorado 
(erroneously stated to be ‘Morrison, Wyoming’ by Galton, BZN 68: 127). The 
specimen was encased in silicified sandstone and collected very poorly by modern 
standards using hammers and chisels, plus explosives to reduce the rock into more 
manageable pieces. The result is that much of the specimen was greatly damaged and 
many pieces missing, thus making it only marginally diagnostic (Carpenter & Galton, 
2001), as noted by Galton (BZN 68: 130) in his petition. Such situations are 
unfortunately common for dinosaur specimens named during the 1800s that now 
require petitions to the Commission to ensure their stability (e.g. Case 3037, Charig 
& Chapman, 1998; Case 3506, Paul & Carpenter, 2010). In these examples, specimens 
displayed characters once thought to be unique but which were later found to be 
more widely distributed through the discovery of more complete specimens. Wilson 
& Upchurch (2003) refer to this as ‘historical obsolescence’. Stegosaurus armatus 
certainly falls into this category in that the hexangular caudal vertebrae and large, 
plate-like osteoderms were thought unique among the Dinosauria. However, subse- 
quent discoveries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America have shown that these 
characters occur in other taxa referred to the Stegosauria. As noted by Galton (BZN 
68: 131), the type of S. armatus has no autapomorphic characters, therefore it cannot 
be separated from any other taxon of Stegosauria. 

In contrast to S. armatus, the nominal species Stegosaurus stenops Marsh, 1887 is 
represented by several nearly complete skeletons and thus is very well known. These 
specimens form the basis for the current concept of the genus Stegosaurus (Marsh, 
1887, 1891; Gilmore, 1914; Carpenter & Galton, 2001; Carpenter et al., 2001; Galton 
& Upchurch, 2004; Maidment et al., 2008; Carpenter, 2010; Galton, 2010). Because 
Stegosaurus is such an iconic dinosaur, and because the name is so well entrenched 
in the scientific literature, its name should be associated with material of taxonomic 
utility. That such is not currently the case is shown by Maidment et al. (2008) 
declaring Hypsirophus discursus, Stegosaurus ungulatus, S. duplex, Diracodon laticeps, 
and Stegosaurus stenops to be junior synonyms of S. armatus. However, the result is 
the creation of a ‘superspecies’ showing a wider range of non-ontogenetic variation 
throughout the skeleton than any other species of Dinosauria, except waste-basket 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 215 


taxa (e.g., [guanodon prior to Paul, 2008). As Carpenter (2010) has noted, the range 
of variation in S. armatus (sensu Maidment et al., 2008) cannot be replicated in other 
large samples of stegosaurids (e.g. Kentrosaurus aethiopicus from Africa), therefore 
casting doubt on the validity of the variations, which in turn casts doubt on the 
concept of S. armatus as defined by Maidment et al. (2008). All of this confusion 
would be eliminated by replacing the nominal species S. armatus with S. stenops as 
petitioned by Galton (BZN 68: 127-133), thereby ensuring taxonomic stability for 
the well-known genus Stegosaurus. 


Additional references 


Charig, A.J. & Chapman, S.D. 1998. Case 3037. Iguanodon Mantel, 1825 (Reptilia, Orni- 
thischia): proposed designation of I[guanodon bernissartensis Boulenger in Beneden, 1881 
as the type species, and proposed designation of a lectotype. Bulletin of Zoological 
Nomenclature, 55(2): 99-104. 

Paul, G.S. 2008. A revised taxonomy of the iguanodont dinosaur genera and species. 
Cretaceous Research, 29, 192-216. 

Paul, G.S. & Carpenter, K. 2010. Case 3506. Al/osaurus Marsh, 1877 (Dinosauria, Theropoda): 
proposed conservation of usage by designation of a neotype for its type species A//osaurus 
fragilis Marsh, 1877. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 67(1): 1-4. 

Wilson, J.A. & Upchurch, P. 2003. A revision of Titanosaurus Lydekker (Dinosauria — 
Sauropoda), the first dinosaur genus with a ‘Gondwanan’ distribution. Journal of 
Systematic Palaeontology, 1: 125-160. 


(3) Vahe Demirjian 


II Canyon Terrace, Newport Coast, CA 92657 U.S.A. 
(e-mail: vahedemirjian@cox.net) 


I am writing in support of the petition (Case 3536) by Galton to replace Stegosaurus 
armatus Marsh, 1877 with S. stenops Marsh, 1887 as the type species of Stegosaurus 
Marsh, 1877. 

Maidment et al. (2008) diagnosed Stegosaurus on the basis of the following 
autapomorphies: (1) Quadrate-squamosal-paroccipital process articulation over- 
hangs the retroarticular process of the lower jaw; (2) postzygapophyses on posterior 
cervical vertebrae are elongated posteriorly and overhang the back of the centrum; 
(3) transverse processes on anterior caudal vertebrae (except for caudals one and two) 
project ventrally rather than laterally; (4) large, rectangular acromial process of the 
scapula; (5) supra-acetabular process diverges at an angle of 90 degrees from the 
anterior process of the ilium; and (6) medial process present on the posterior iliac 
process of the ilium. They also noted that Stegosaurus armatus (= Stegosaurus sensu 
Carpenter et al. 2001 of my usage) differs from all other stegosaurs in having: (1) 
edentulous portion of the dentary anterior to the tooth row and posterior to the 
predentary; (2) dorsally elevated postzygapophyses of the cervical vertebrae; (3) 
bifurcated summits of the neural spines of the anterior and middle caudal vertebrae; 
(4) unexpanded posterior end of the pubis; and (5) dermal ossicles embedded in the 
skin on the underside of the cervical region. They referred all stegosaur taxa from the 
Morrison Formation (except Stegosaurus sulcatus, S. longispinus, and Hesperosaurus 
mjosi) to S. armatus. 


216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


Of the autapomorphies cited for sTEGOSAURINAE (=Stegosaurus) and Stegosaurus 
(= S. armatus) by Maidment et al., only two characters can be observed in the 
holotype of Stegosaurus armatus (YPM 1850): transverse processes on anterior 
caudal vertebrae (except for caudals one and two) project ventrally rather than 
laterally and bifurcated summits of the neural spines of the anterior and middle 
caudal vertebrae. As acknowledged by Galton (2010), the presence of transverse 
processes on anterior caudal vertebrae (except for caudals one and two) that project 
ventrally rather than laterally is not confined to YPM 1850 and other specimens 
referred to S. armatus by Maidment et al. (e.g. USNM 4934, YPM 1853) but is also 
found in Hesperosaurus mjosi and Stegosaurus longispinus. The caudals of YPM 
1850 exhibit bifurcated summits of the neural spines of the anterior and middle 
caudal vertebrae (Carpenter & Galton, 2001, fig. 4.4G; Galton, 2010, fig. 1b), an 
autapomorphy of Stegosaurus armatus according to Maidment et al., but as Galton 
demonstrated, this character is also present in Stegosaurus ungulatus (YPM 1853, 
YPM 1858), S. stenops (USNM 4934, DMNS 2818), S. /ongispinus (UW 20503), and 
the holotype of Hypsirophus discursus (AMNH 5731). Using the updated list of 
synapomorphies for Stegosauria, and STEGOSAURIDAE provided by Mateus et al. 
(2009, supplementary information), a stegosaurian placement of S. armatus is 
supported by the presence of two parasagittal rows of plates or spines extending 
from the cervical region to the end of the tail (Carpenter & Galton, 2001, fig. 4.5C). 
YPM 1850 can be assigned to STEGOSAURIDAE based on the presence of a dorsal 
process on transverse process of caudal vertebrae and anterior caudal vertebrae 
with bulbous swellings at the top of neural spines (Carpenter & Galton, 2001, 
figs 4.4D, F). 

Using the criteria outlined by Galton regarding the autapomorphic structure of 
dermal armor for Morrison stegosaur species, Stegosaurus ungulatus, S. stenops, 
S. longispinus, and Hesperosaurus mjosi differ from each other in the form of the 
dermal armor, as well as characters of the femur and ilium, as noted by Galton. 
However, except for fragments of a large dermal plate, no dermal armor is preserved 
in the holotype of S. armatus, so YPM 1850 lacks any dermal characters that 
would distinguish it from S. ungulatus, S. stenops, S. longispinus, or Hesperosaurus 
mjosl. 

In a recent abstract, Mossbrucker et al. (2009) indicated that the holotype of 
Stegosaurus armatus is distinguishable from other Morrison stegosaurs by the 
presence of unusually robust neural spines, based on recent preparation of the 
holotype at the Morrison Natural History Museum (MNHM). However, this 
character is likely to be a product of individual variation within a species, and the 
results of Mossbrucker et al. have not yet been published. Thus, sTEGOSAURINAE 
(= Stegosaurus sensu Maidment et al., 2008) comprises three valid genera, Hespero- 
saurus, Stegosaurus, and Wuerhosaurus; Stegosaurus sensu Carpenter et al., 2001 
(= Stegosaurus armatus sensu Maidment et al., 2008) comprises three valid species 
(Stegosaurus ungulatus, S. stenops, and S. longispinus), with Stegosaurus armatus, 
Hypsirophus discursus, Diracodon laticeps, and Stegosaurus sulcatus referable to 
Stegosaurus sensu stricto (restricted to S. stenops, S. longispinus, and S. ungulatus) as 
nomina dubia. I provisionally agree with Galton in considering S. armatus a nomen 
dubium and restricting it to YPM 1850 until the results of Mossbrucker et al. are 
published and YPM 1850 is fully described. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 217 


Additional references 


Mateus, O., Maidment S.C.R. & Christiansen, N.A. 2009. A new long-necked ‘sauropod- 
mimic’ stegosaur and the evolution of the plated dinosaurs. Proceedings of the Royal 
Society B: Biological Sciences, 276: 1815-1821. 


Preprints of selected comments: 


To speed dissemination and facilitate discussion, preprints of selected comments will 
be available online at http://iczn.org/preprints. Please check this page regularly for 
new additions. 


218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


OPINION 2277 (Case 3504) 


Onthophagus rugulosus Harold, 1886 (Coleoptera, SCARABAEIDAE): 
specific name conserved 


Abstract. The Commission has conserved the specific name of the dung beetle 
Onthophagus rugulosus Harold, 1886 (Coleoptera: sCARABAEIDAE), a widespread 
species from East Asia, by suppressing the senior secondary homonym Elytridium 
rugulosum Heer, 1870, a fragmentary fossil from the Miocene of Spitsbergen, 
Norway, that was transferred to Onthophagus in 1977. A replacement name, 
O. spitsbergeniensis nom. nov., has been provided for the dubious fossil species. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; Coleoptera; SCARABAEIDAE; Onthophagus; Elytridium; 
Onthophagus rugulosus; Onthophagus spitsbergeniensis; dung beetles; Miocene; East 
Asia; Spitsbergen. 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the specific name rugulosum 
Heer, 1870, as published in the binomen Elytridium rugulosum, and all uses of 
the name before Harold (1886) are suppressed for the purposes of both the 
Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology: 
(a) rugulosus Harold, 1886, as published in the binomen Onthophagus rugulosus; 
(b) spitsbergeniensis Krell, 2010, as published in the binomen Onthophagus 

spitsbergeniensis, replacement name for Elytridium rugulosum Heer, 1870. 

(3) The name rugulosum Heer, 1870, as published in the binomen Elytridium 
rugulosum and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index 
of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 


History of Case 3504 


An application to conserve the specific name of the dung beetle Onthophagus 
rugulosus Harold, 1886 (Coleoptera: SCARABAEIDAE), a widespread species from East 
Asia, by suppressing the senior secondary homonym Elytridium rugulosum Heer, 
1870, based on a fragmentary fossil from the Miocene of Spitsbergen, Norway, that 
was transferred to Onthophagus in 1977, was received from Frank-Thorsten Krell 
(Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO, U.S.A.) on 17 September 2009. 
After correspondence the case was published in BZN 67: 28-31 (March 2010). The 
title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. 
No comments were received on this case. 


Decision of the Commission 


On 1 March 2011 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 67: 29. At the close of the voting period on | June 2011 
the votes were as follows: 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 219 


Affirmative votes — 25: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, 
Halliday, Harvey, Kojima, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Minelli, Ng, Pape, 
Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Winston, Yanega, Zhang and Zhou. 

Negative votes — 0. 

Alonso-Zarazaga, Lim and Pyle were on leave of absence. 

Voting FOR, Grygier said he would have liked to know whether the holotype of 
Onthophagus spitsbergeniensis is extant and, if so, where and with what catalogue 
information, even though this is not required information for a replacement name. 
Ng said that the replacement name had already been proposed and was nomenclatu- 
rally valid as the BZN is a valid publication. Winston, voting FOR, commented that 
basing a Recent species on a fossil type usually turns out to be a mistake. Zhou, 
voting FOR, noted that the replacement name would be invalid if the case was not 
supported by the Commission. 


Original references 


The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes 
by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 


rugulosum, Elytridium, Heer, 1870, Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, 8(7): 
78. 

rugulosus, Onthophagus, Harold, 1886, in Heyden, L. von, Harold, [E.] von & Kraatz, G. 1886. 
Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 30: 289. 

spitsbergeniensis, Onthophagus, Krell, 2010, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 67: 29. 


220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


OPINION 2278 (Case 3489) 


Chrysomela elongata Suffrian, 1851 (currently Oreina elongata; 
Insecta, Coleoptera): name conserved 


Abstract. The Commission has conserved the use of the well known alpine leaf beetle 
name Oreina elongata (Suffrian, 1851), originally published as Chrysomela elongata, 
and thus a junior primary homonym of Chrysomela elongata Linnaeus, 1758, 
currently known as Tillus elongatus (Linnaeus, 1758). 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Coleoptera; CHRYSOMELIDAE; Oreina 
elongata; alpine leaf beetle. 


Ruling 
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the name e/ongata Suffrian, 

1851, as published in the binomen Chrysomela elongata, is not invalid by 

reason of being a junior primary homonym of elongata Linnaeus, 1758, as 

published in the binomen Chrysomela elongata. 
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology: 

(a) elongata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Chrysomela elon- 
gata; 

(b) elongata Suffrian, 1851, as published in the binomen Chrysomela elongata, 
with the endorsement that it is not invalid by reason of being a junior 
primary homonym of e/ongata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the 
binomen Chrysomela elongata, as ruled in (1) above. 


History of Case 3489 


An application to conserve the use of the well known alpine leaf beetle name Oreina 
elongata (Suffrian, 1851), originally published as Chrysomela elongata, and thus a 
junior primary homonym of Chrysomela elongata Linnaeus, 1758, currently known 
as Tillus elongatus (Linnaeus, 1758), was received from Hans Silfverberg (Finnish 
Museum of Natural History, Zoological Museum, Helsinki University, Helsinki, 
Finland) on 3 March 2009. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 66: 
320-322 (December 2009). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were 
published on the Commission’s website. No comments were received on this case. 


Decision of the Commission 


On 1 December 2010 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 66: 321. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 
2011 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 22: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, 
Halliday, Harvey, Kojima, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Minelli, Pape, Papp, Patterson, 
Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Winston, Yanega, and Zhou. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 221 


Negative votes — 2: Lamas and Lim. 

Alonso-Zarazaga, Ng, Pyle and Zhang were on leave of absence. 

Voting FOR, Harvey commented that, although he felt the case was relatively 
straightforward and he supported the application to maintain existing usage of the 
junior homonym, he advised that details of any existing type specimens of both 
Chrysomela elongata Linnaeus, 1758 and Chrysomela elongata Suffrian, 1851 should 
be supplied to verify current taxonomic placements. 


Original references 
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 


elongata, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 377. 
elongata, Chrysomela, Suffrian, 1851, Linnaea Entomologica, 5: 146. 


222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


OPINION 2279 (Case 3488) 


Papilio danae Fabricius, 1775 (currently Colotis danae; Insecta, 
Lepidoptera, PIERIDAE): usage conserved by the suppression of Papilio 
danae Hutnagel, 1766 


Abstract. The combination Papilio danae Fabricius, 1775 (Lepidoptera, PIERIDAE) has 
been conserved by suppression of the primary homonym Papilio danae Hufnagel, 
1766. The current combination Colotis danae is well-established as the valid name for 
a common and widespread butterfly with many subspecies in Africa, Arabia, and 
Asia. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Lepidoptera; PIERIDAE; Papilio; Colotis; 
Colotis danae; Papilio eborea; butterflies; Asia; Arabia; Africa. 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the name danae Hufnagel, 
1766, as published in the binomen Papilio danae, is suppressed for the purposes 
of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name danae Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Papilio danae, is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name danae Hufnagel, 1766, as published in the binomen Papilio danae, is 
hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology. 


History of Case 3488 


An application to conserve the combination Papilio danae Fabricius, 1775 (Lepidop- 
tera, PIERIDAE) by suppression of the primary homonym Papilio danae Hufnagel, 1766 
was received from Torben B. Larsen (Denmark), R.I. Vane-Wright (Natural History 
Museum, London, U.K. and Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, University 
of Kent, Canterbury U.K.), Krushnamegh Kunte (Harvard University, Cambridge, 
MA, U.S.A.) and Vazrick Nazari (University of Guelph, ON, Canada) on 17 February 
2009. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 66: 250—255 (September 
2009). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commis- 
sion’s website. A comment in support was published in BZN 67: 65. 


Decision of the Commission 


On | September 2010 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 66: 253. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
2010 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, 
Halliday, Harvey, Kojima, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Minelli, Pape, Papp, 
Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Winston, Yanega, Zhang and Zhou. 

Negative votes — 1: Lim. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 225 


Alonso-Zarazaga, Ng and Pyle were on leave of absence. 

Voting FOR, Halliday said the Case presented an overwhelming argument for the 
protection of the name danae Fabricius, 1775. The use of the name Papilio eborea was 
a clear example of the over-zealous and pedantic application of the letter of the Code, 
in a way that was inconsistent with stability. However, he felt it was unfortunate that 
the Case depended heavily on the use of Google as evidence of usage. He said he 
thought the Commission should make an explicit statement that they strongly 
discourage the use of Google because it produces spurious and misleading results. 
This point was made very eloquently in a Comment entitled ‘Googleology’: Powerful 
tool or unreliable evidence by Lawrence, Pelkey & Soares (BZN 67: 246-254). In the 
future authors should be instructed not to use Google, but instead to base their 
arguments on a more thoughtful and critical analysis of the genuine scientific 
literature. Stys said that although he was voting FOR, he regretted that the published 
Case had not used the terminology of the Code. The authors’ ‘replacement name 
Papilio eborea’ (paragraph 10) is actually a ‘substitute name’ (cf. Glossary of the 
Code). Moreover, Stys also felt that the number of hits in Google should not be used 
in nomenclatural argumentation (paragraphs 9 &10). For example, the authors of the 
Case gave 3,700 hits for Colotis danae while only 12 for ‘“Hipparchia danae Hufnagel 
and Papilio danae Hufnagel” (as from 30 September 2009); whereas Stys’ subsequent 
search (25 September 2010) provided 19,700 for ‘“‘Colotis danae’’, 64,300 for 
‘Hipparchia danae”’ and 3,020 for “Papilio danae’’ using the names without authors, 
4,630 for “Colotis danae Fabricius’, 5,380 for “Colotis danae Hufnagel’, 1,290 for 
‘“Hipparchia danae Fabricius’, 998 for ‘“‘Hipparchia danae Hufnagel”, 2,620 for 
“Papilio danae Fabricius” and 1,800 for “Papilio danae Hufnagel’. Stys said the 
utility and reliability of such data needed no further comment. Voting FOR, Yanega 
felt it should not, in principle, have been necessary to vote on this Case. He suggested 
that Article 29.3.5 is sufficient to indicate that the two names are not homonyms. 
However, the inappropriate actions of Kocak would seem to make a Commission 
ruling desirable to prevent further confusion. 


Original references 


The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes 
by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 


danae, Papilio, Fabricius, 1775, Systema entomologiae, sistens insectorum classes, ordines, 
genera, species, adiectis synonymis, locis, descriptionibus, observationibus. [xxxii], Officina 
Libraria Kortii, Flensburgi & Lipsiae, p. 476. 

danae, Papilio, Hufnagel, 1766, Berlinisches Magazin, oder gesammlete Schriften und Nach- 
richten fiir die Liebhaber der Arzneywissenschaft, Naturgeschichte und der angenehmen 
Wissenschaften tiberhaupt, 2(1): 82. 


224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


OPINION 2280 (Case 3436) 


Pachynematus Konow, 1890 (Insecta, Hymenoptera, Symphyta): 
generic name given precedence over Epitactus Forster, 1854 


Abstract. The Commission has conserved the widely used sawfly generic name 
Pachynematus Konow, 1890 by giving it precedence over a rarely used name 
Epitactus Forster, 1854, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. Sawflies in 
this genus are of economic significance as pests of cereal and grass-fodder crops in 
North America, Europe and China. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; TENTHREDINIDAE; NEMATINAE; 
Pachynematus; Epitactus; Nematus trisignatus; Epitactus praecox; sawflies; Holarctic. 


Ruling 
(1) Under the plenary power the name Pachynematus Konow, 1890 is hereby given 
precedence over the name Epitactus Forster, 1854 whenever the two are 
considered to be synonyms. 
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology: 

(a) Pachynematus Konow, 1890 (gender: masculine), type species by subse- 
quent designation by Schmidt et al. (1998) Nematus trisignatus Forster, 
1854, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over Epitactus 
Forster, 1854 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; 

(b) Epitactus Forster, 1854 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy 
Epitactus praecox Forster, 1854, with the endorsement that it is not to be 
given priority over Pachynematus Konow, 1890, whenever the two are 
considered to be synonyms. | 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology: 

(a) trisignatus Forster, 1854, as published in the binomen Nematus trisignatus 
(specific name of the type species of Pachynematus Konow, 1890); 

(b) praecox Forster, 1854, as published in the binomen Epitactus praecox 
(specific name of the type species of Epitactus Forster, 1854). 


History of Case 3436 


An application to conserve the widely used sawfly generic name Pachynematus 
Konow, 1890 by giving it precedence over the rarely used senior subjective synonym 
Epitactus Forster, 1854, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms, was 
received from Andrew D. Liston (Senckenberg Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, 
Miincheberg, Germany) on 6 August 2007. After correspondence the case was 
published in BZN 67: 32-37 (March 2010). The title, abstract and keywords of the 
case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments were received on 
this case. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 225 


Decision of the Commission 


On | March 2011 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 67: 35. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 2011 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 19: Ballerio, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, Halliday, Harvey, 
Kojima, Krell, Lamas, Minelli, Ng, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, Winston, 
Yanega, Zhang and Zhou. 

Negative votes — 6: Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Kottelat, Kullander, Pape and van Tol. 

Alonso-Zarazaga, Lim and Pyle were on leave of absence. 

Voting AGAINST, Bouchet commented that conditional reversals of precedence 
are a source of nomenclatural instability. Although he sympathised with the intention 
of the author, he could not technically endorse the solution that was offered to solve 
the case. 


Original references 


The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 


Pachynematus Konow, 1890, Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 1890(2): 233 & 238. 

Epitactus Forster, 1854 Verhandlungen der naturhistorischen Vereines der preussischen Rhein- 
lande und Westfalens (N.F.), 1: 435. 

trisignatus, Nematus, Forster, 1854, Verhandlungen der naturhistorischen Vereines der preussis- 
chen Rheinlande und Westfalens (N.F.), 1: 292. 

praecox, Epitactus, Forster, 1854, Verhandlungen der naturhistorischen Vereines der preussis- 
chen Rheinlande und Westfalens (N.F.), 1: 435. 


226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


OPINION 2281 (Case 3507) 


Phylloporina Ulrich in Foerste, 1887 (Bryozoa, Fenestrata, 
Phylloporinina): Retepora trentonensis Nicholson, 1875 designated as 
the type species 


Abstract. The Commission has set aside Retepora angulata Hall, 1852 and Retepora 
angulata Hall as applied by Foerste, 1887 as type species of the Palaeozoic bryozoan 
genus Phylloporina Ulrich in Foerste, 1887 and replaced them with Retepora 
trentonensis Nicholson, 1875. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Bryozoa; Phylloporinina; PHYLLOPORINIDAE; 
Phylloporina; Chasmatopora; Retepora angulata; Retepora trentonensis; bryozoans; 
Palaeozoic. 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary power all previous type species fixations for the nominal 
genus Phylloporina Ulrich in Foerste, 1887 are hereby set aside and Retepora 
trentonensis Nicholson, 1875 is hereby designated as the type species. 

(2) The name PAylloporina Ulrich in Foerste, 1887 (gender: feminine), type species 
Retepora trentonensis Nicholson, 1875 by designation in (1) above, is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name trentonensis Nicholson, 1875, as published in the binomen Retepora 
trentonensis (specific name of the type species of Phylloporina Ulrich in 
Foerste, 1887, as ruled in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology. 


History of Case 3507 


An application to set aside Retepora angulata Hall, 1852 and Retepora angulata Hall 
as applied by Foerste, 1887 as type species of the Palaeozoic bryozoan genus 
Phylloporina Ulrich in Foerste, 1887 and replace them with Retepora trentonensis 
Nicholson, 1875, was received from Frank K. McKinney (Appalachian State 
University, Boone, NC, U.S.A.) and Patrick N. Wyse Jackson (Trinity College, 
Dublin, Ireland) on 18 November 2009. After correspondence the case was published 
in BZN 67: 38-43 (March 2010). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were 
published on the Commission’s website. No comments were received on this case. 


Decision of the Commission 


On | March 2011 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 67: 41. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 2011 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 23: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, 
Halliday, Harvey, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Minelli, Pape, Papp, Patterson, 
Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Winston, Yanega, Zhang and Zhou. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 Zot 


Negative votes — 2: Kojima and Ng. 

Alonso-Zarazaga, Lim and Pyle were on leave of absence. 

Voting FOR, Stys said he wondered why the more straightforward solution was 
not suggested that would affect only the date and not the type species. Phylloporina 
Ulrich in Foerste, 1887, type species Retropora angulata Foerste, 1887 non Hall, 1852 
(misidentified, later renamed Chasmatopora foerstei McKinney & Wyse Jackson, 
2010; fixed by monotypy) was a senior homonym of Phylloporina Ulrich, 1890 (type 
species Retropora trentonensis Nicholson, 1875; subsequently designated by Ulrich, 
1895). The senior homonym (a junior subjective synonym of Chasmatopora 
Eichwald, 1855) could simply have been suppressed in favour of the junior name. 
However, Winston, also voting FOR, said she thought the present solution was the 
simplest way to clarify a confused nomenclatural problem. 

Voting AGAINST, Kojima said that for the stability of the generic name 
Phylloporina, he did not find it necessary to set aside all previous type species 
fixations for the nominal genus Phylloporina and to designate Retepora trentonensis 
as the type species. Ng, also voting AGAINST, said he was not convinced that a 
ruling needed to be made, even though the authors made an excellent case for how 
complicated the taxonomy of the two genera involved was and how doubtful the true 
identities of the type species. These animals were of minimal scientific impact and 
were currently the subject of study only by taxonomists. He felt that it might be best 
just to accept that the type species was Retepora angulata Hall, 1852 and move the 
taxonomy on from there. It mattered not what the original intent was or whose 
concept it was, as long as there was now a one-off resolution and the science could 
progress from that point. Ng granted that there would be a short period of confusion 
but he felt that taxonomists could surely cope. 


Original references 


The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 


Phylloporina Ulrich in Foerste, 1887, Bulletin of the Scientific Laboratories of Denison 
University, 2: 150. 
trentonensis, Retepora, Nicholson, 1875, Geological Magazine, New Series, Decade 2, 2: 37. 


228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


OPINION 2282 (Case 3502) 


Coluber nummifer Reuss, 1834 (currently Hemorrhois nummifer; 
Reptilia, Serpentes): specific name conserved 


Abstract. The Commission has conserved the widely used specific name nummifer 
Reuss, 1834 for an eastern Mediterranean colubrine snake originally published 
within Coluber Linnaeus, 1758 and currently referred to the genus Hemorrhois Boie, 
1826, by suppressing the putative senior synonym Coluber tyria Linnaeus, 1758. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; COLUBRIDAE; Coluber; Coluber tyria; 
Hemorrhois nummifer; coin snake; diadem snake; eastern Mediterranean; Saharo- 
Sindian. 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary power the specific name tyria Linnaeus, 1758, as published 
in the binomen Coluber tyria, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the 
Principle of Priority, but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name nummifer Reuss, 1834, as published in the binomen Coluber 
nummifer, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name tyria Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coluber tyria and 
as suppressed in (1) above is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected 
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 


History of Case 3502 


An application to conserve the widely used specific name nummifer Reuss, 1834 for 
an eastern Mediterranean colubrine snake originally published within Coluber 
Linnaeus, 1758 and currently referred to the genus Hemorrhois Boie, 1826, by 
suppressing the putative senior synonym Coluber tyria Linnaeus, 1758, was received 
from Beat Schatti (San Pedro Pochutla, Oaxaca, Mexico) and Frank Tillack (Berlin, 
Germany) on 2 September 2009. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 
67: 44-52 (March 2010). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published 
on the Commission’s website. No comments were received on this case. 


Decision of the Commission 


On 1 March 2011 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 67: 47. At the close of the voting period on | June 2011 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 21: Ballerio, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, Halliday, 
Harvey, Kojima, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Minelli, Pape, Papp, Patterson, Rosen- 
berg, Stys, Winston, Yanega, Zhang and Zhou. 

Negative votes — 3: Bogutskaya, Ng and van Tol. 

Kottelat abstained. Alonso-Zarazaga, Lim and Pyle were on leave of absence. 

Voting AGAINST, Ng said that while he was very sympathetic to the case and the 
arguments, he did not believe the solution suggested here was the best way forward 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 229 


for long-term stability. He felt that the fact that the name had been used probably 
incorrectly in some cases did not change the rules involved. Considering that the 
species of snake in question had not been widely used in other domains of biology, 
and was primarily used in ecology, faunistics and systematics, an eventual change in 
name, perhaps to Coluber tyria Linnaeus, 1758 with an appropriate neotype selection, 
should not cause substantial problems. Voting AGAINST, van Tol said that this case 
should have been resolved by designating a neotype for Coluber tyria. 


Original references 
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes 
by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 


nummifer, Coluber, Reuss, 1834, Museum Senckenbergianum, 1(6): 135. 
tyria, Coluber, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. Salvii, Holmiae, p. 224. 


230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


OPINION 2283 (Case 3390) 


Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 (Aves): conservation of 
usage by designation of a neotype 


Abstract. The Commission has set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal 
species Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 and designated a feathered 
specimen (BMNH 37001) in the Natural History Museum, London as the neotype. 
The holotype (a feather impression) was not identifiable to species and could belong 
to any taxon of fossil birds recognised from the Solnhofen limestone. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Aves; Archaeopteryx; Archaeopteryx litho- 
graphica; neotype; Solnhofen; Jurassic. 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that all previous type fixations for 
the nominal species Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 are set aside 
and specimen BMNH 37001 at the Natural History Museum, London is 
designated as the neotype. 

(2) It is hereby ruled that both the generic and specific names Archaeopteryx and 
lithographica were made available by von Meyer, 1861 in ‘Archaeopterix 
lithographica (Vogel-Feder) und Pterodactylus von Solenhofen. Neues Jahrbuch 
fiir Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefakten-Kunde, p. 679.’ 

(3) The entries in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology for the names Archaeopteryx von Meyer, 
1861 and lithographica von Meyer, 1861, as published in the binomen 
Archaeopteryx lithographica, are hereby emended to record the neotype 
designation as in (1) above and the date and pagination as in (2) above. 


History of Case 3390 


An application to preserve stability and universality of usage of the name Archae- 
opteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 by setting aside the existing holotype and 
designating a neotype, was received from Walter J. Bock (Columbia University, New 
York, NY, U.S.A.) and Paul Bihler (deceased, formerly of University of Stuttgart- 
Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany) on 5 June 2006. After correspondence the case was 
published in BZN 64: 182-184 (December 2007). The title, abstract and keywords of 
the case were published on the Commission’s website. Comments (seven supporting, 
one opposing) were published in BZN 64: 261-262, 65: 314-317 (with additional 
proposals), 66: 87-88, 66: 357-358; 67: 90-93, 67: 179. An additional comment 
correcting the page reference for the name was received and circulated before the 
vote; this will be available on the Commission website. 


Decision of the Commission 


On | March 2011 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
original set of proposals published in BZN 64: 184 and the modified set of proposals 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 Zon 


in BZN 65: 317 (which included the original two proposals as 1 & 3 and the addition 
of proposal 2 as reflected in the ruling above). At the close of the voting period on 
1 June 2011 the votes were as follows: 

Original proposals: 

Affirmative votes — 14: Ballerio, Bouchet, Brothers, Grygier, Harvey, Krell, 
Kullander, Lamas, Pape, Rosenberg, Stys, Winston, Yanega and Zhang. 

Negative votes — 8: Halliday, Kojima, Minelli, Ng, Papp, Patterson, van Tol and 
Zhou. 

Bogutskaya split her vote, Fautin abstained. Alonso-Zarazaga, Kottelat, Lim and 
Pyle were on leave of absence. 

Modified proposals: 

Affirmative votes — 20: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Halliday, 
Harvey, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Minelli, Ng, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, 
Stys, van Tol, Winston, Yanega, and Zhou. 

Negative votes — 2: Kojima and Pape, 

Grygier split his vote, Fautin abstained. Alonso-Zarazaga, Kottelat, Lim and Pyle 
were on leave of absence. 

As the modified proposals have passed, and include all of the content of the 
original proposals, this decision is taken as binding for both sets of proposals. 

Voting FOR both sets of proposals, Brothers said that it seemed eminently sensible 
to ensure clarity in the application of this famous name, which was not possible from 
the current holotype, and designation of the requested neotype would accomplish 
this. The elimination of ambiguities in its attribution was also assisted by confirma- 
tion as to the publication in which the names were made available. Also voting FOR 
both sets of proposals, Lamas commented that, based on the evidence available, the 
proposals initially suggested by Bock & Buhler, ably improved by Kadolsky, 
appeared to him to be the simplest and most rational solution. Voting FOR both sets 
of proposals Rosenberg said that some of the published comments on this case 
suggested hypothetical scenarios. One scenario was that detailed anatomical and 
morphometric study would show all of the feather-bearing nominal species known 
from Solnhofen are synonymous, in which case a neotype would not be necessary 
(i.e. given time, the case would resolve itself). Another is that future discoveries 
would show unequivocally that more than one feather-bearing species occurred at 
Solnhofen (i.e. sooner or later a neotype would be needed). He pointed out that while 
these scenarios were both reasonable, the Commission must deal with the current 
situation, not hypothetical ones. If only one nominal species had so far been 
described from Solnhofen, Rosenberg said he would agree that designation of a 
neotype was premature, but the current situation was that some workers considered 
there to be only one feather-bearing species at Solnhofen whereas others regard there 
to be more than one. As an example of the latter he cited Senter & Robins (2003, 
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 23: 961-965), who did a morphometric analysis 
on six Archaeopteryx skeletons, but a priori excluded the specimen assigned to 
Wellnhoferia ‘due to the specimen’s unique pedal and caudal characteristics’. 
Therefore, Rosenberg regarded designation of a neotype as necessary. Stys, who 
voted FOR both sets of proposals, said that it was unclear how to vote against the 
first set of proposals since the first set of proposals was actually only a subset of the 
second. He suggested a better formulation would have been to vote on whether (b) 


282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


Fig. 1. Archaeopteryx lithographica (neotype BMNH 37001, the Natural History Museum, London). 
©The Natural History Museum, London image 001233. Length of tibiae (for scale) 80.7 mm. 


should be included or not. On the content of the Case, he said he thought that the 
whole specimen was better as the name-bearing type than a non-identifiable feather, 
particularly since no change of name and no alteration of taxonomic concept was 
involved. Winston, voting FOR both sets of proposals, said that the modified set 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 20 


seemed necessary as a comment on the details of the process by which the name 
became available. Yanega, voting FOR both sets of proposals, said it was quite clear 
to him that the London specimen had long been taken, in practice, as the de facto 
type of A. lithographica. He thought it seemed perfectly sensible to formalise this 
unambiguously, as well as to resolve any ambiguities regarding the publication that 
made the name available, to forestall any future controversy. 

Grygier, voting FOR the first set of proposals and splitting his vote for the second 
set of proposals as FOR 1, AGAINST 2 & 3, explained that statement 1 is identical 
in both sets of proposals, and that he felt there seemed to be no need for Kadolsky’s 
additional proposal 2 in the modified set as Archaeopteryx and lithographica are 
already available from the specified von Meyer work of 1861 by virtue of their being 
listed as such in the respective Official Lists (Article 80.4 of the Code). The plenary 
power would be needed to change this status, not to maintain it. 

Ng, voting AGAINST the first set and FOR the second set of proposals, 
commented that the Case explained the controversial history for an extremely 
important fossil and a very widely used name. He felt that it made sense that the 
Commission should now fix the author (as it had always been recognised) and select 
a neotype that had been the basis of what the name was. He added that he felt it 
might not be the best approach in a legal framework, but it was the right thing to do 
for nomenclatural stability nevertheless. 

Van Tol, voting AGAINST the original set of proposals and FOR the modified set 
of proposals, said that incomplete type specimens did not usually hamper progress in 
taxonomy. In most groups consensus was reached on the identity of the nominal taxa 
based on the opinion of experts after studying type material or descriptions. 
Apparently, students of fossil birds preferred a better preserved specimen for the 
nominal taxon Archaeopteryx lithographica, while the proposed neotype had been 
considered the type for many years. Although strictly there was no reason for action 
by the Commission, the modified proposal actually preserved present practice. 

Voting AGAINST both sets of proposals, Kojima commented that the proposal 
did not mention explicitly why the stability or universality of Archaeopteryx 
lithographica were threatened. Even if the existing name-bearing type (feather 
impression) could not determine the taxonomic identity of Archaeopteryx litho- 
graphica, as mentioned in paragraph 8, neither its stability nor universality were 
threatened. 


Original reference 


The following is the original reference to the name amended on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 


lithographica, Archaeopteryx, von Meyer, 1861, Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geognosie, 
Geologie und Petrefakten-Kunde, 1861(6): 679. 


234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


OPINION 2284 (Case 3499) 


Anthochaera Vigors & Horsfield, 1827 and Philesturnus Geoftroy 
Saint-Hilaire, 1832 (Aves): usage conserved by suppression of the 
generic name Creadion Vieillot, 1816 


Abstract. The Commission has conserved the generic names Anthochaera Vigors & 
Horsfield, 1827 and Philesturnus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1832 for Australian wattled 
honeyeaters (MELIPHAGIDAE) and the New Zealand saddleback (CALLAEIDAE) by 
suppression of the generic name Creadion Vieillot, 1816. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; CALLAEIDAE; MELIPHAGIDAE; Creadion; Antho- 
chaera; Philesturnus; saddleback; wattled honeyeaters; Australasia. 


Ruling 
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the generic name Creadion 

Vieillot, 1816 is suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not 

for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology: 

(a) Anthochaera Vigors & Horsfield, 1827 (gender: feminine), type species by 
subsequent designation by G.R. Gray (1840) Corvus paradoxus Daudin, 
1800; 

(b) Philesturnus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1832 (gender: masculine), type species 
by monotypy Sturnus carunculatus Gmelin, 1789. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology: 

(a) paradoxus Daudin, 1800, as published in the binomen Corvus paradoxus 
(specific name of the type species of Anthochaera Vigors & Horsfield, 
lle PAIP 

(b) carunculatus Gmelin, 1789, as published in the binomen Sturnus caruncu- 
latus (specific name of the type species of Philesturnus Geoffroy Saint- 
Hilaire, 1832). 

(4) The name Creadion Vieillot, 1816, as suppressed in (1) above is hereby placed 
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 


History of Case 3499 


An application to conserve the generic names Anthochaera Vigors & Horsfield, 1827 
and Philesturnus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1832 for Australian wattled honeyeaters 
(MELIPHAGIDAE) and the New Zealand saddleback (CALLAEIDAE) by suppression of the 
generic name Creadion Vieillot, 1816, was received from Walter J. Bock (Columbia 
University, New York, NY, U.S.A.), Richard Schodde (Australian Biological 
Resources Study, Canberra, Australia) and Ricardo L. Palma (Museum of New 
Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, Wellington, New Zealand) on 24 July 2009. After 
correspondence the case was published in BZN 66: 332-339 (December 2009). The 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 235 


title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. 
Comments on this case were published in BZN 67: 93-94 and 179-181. 


Decision of the Commission 


On 1 March 2011 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 66: 336. At the close of the voting period on | June 2011 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Ballerio, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, Halliday, 
Harvey, Kojima, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Minelli, Ng, Pape, Papp, 
Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Winston, Yanega, Zhang and Zhou. 

Negative votes — 1: Bogutskaya. 

Alonso-Zarazaga, Lim and Pyle were on leave of absence. 

Voting FOR, Bouchet commented that, although it had no effect on the action 
taken or his vote, he wished to record his full agreement with Bock et al. (contra 
Gregory & David) regarding the type species fixation for Creadion. 


Original references 


The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes 
by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 


Anthochaera Vigors & Horsfield, 1827, Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 15: 320. 

carunculatus, Sturnus, Gmelin, 1789, Systema Naturae, Lipsiae, Ed. 13, vol. 1, Dt. 2. Pp. B03: 

Creadion Vieillot, 1816, Analyse d’une nouvelle ornithologie élémentaire. Déterville, Paris, p. 34. 

paradoxus, Corvus, Daudin, 1800, Traité élémentaire et complet d’ornithologie, ou histoire 
naturelle des oiseaux, vol. 2. 473 pp., pls. 9-27. Bertrandet, Paris, p. 246, pl. 16. 

Philesturnus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1832, Nouvelles Annales du Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, 
1: 390. 


236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


OPINION 2285 (Case 3474) 


Aplonis Gould, 1836 (Aves; STURNIDAE): spelling conserved 


Abstract. The Commission has ruled to conserve the widely accepted spelling Aplonis 
Gould, 18 October 1836 for the Indo-Australasian glossy starlings (STURNIDAE) by 
suppression of the prior but little-used spelling Aplornis Gould, [1 or 3 October] 1836. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Aves; STURNIDAE; Aplonis; Aplornis; Aplonis 
marginata; glossy starlings; Indo-Australasia. 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that the generic name Aplornis Gould, [1 
or 3 October] 1836 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of 
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name Aplonis Gould, 18 October 1836 (gender: feminine), type species by 
subsequent designation Aplonis marginata Gould, 1836, is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name marginata Gould, 1836, as published in the binomen Aplonis 
marginata (specific name of the type species of Ap/onis Gould, 1836), is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name Aplornis Gould, [1 or 3 October] 1836, as suppressed in (1) above, 
is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names 
in Zoology. 


History of Case 3474 


An application to conserve the widely accepted spelling Aplonis Gould, 18 October 
1836 for the Indo-Australasian glossy starlings (STURNIDAE) by suppression of the 
prior but little-used spelling Aplornis Gould, [1 or 3 October] 1836 was received from 
Richard Schodde (Australian Biological Resources Study, Canberra City, Australia) 
and Walter J. Bock (Columbia University, New York, NY, U.S.A.) on 6 August 2008. 
After correspondence the case was published in BZN 66: 56-63 (March 2009). The 
title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. 
No comments on this case were received. 


Decision of the Commission 


On 2 March 2010 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 66: 59. At the close of the voting period on | June 2010 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 25: Alonso-Zarazaga, Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, 
Fautin, Grygier, Halliday, Harvey, Kojima, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Lim, 
Minelli, Ng, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Winston, Yanega and Zhou. 

Negative votes — 1: Pape. 

Pyle and Zhang were on leave of absence. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 237 


Original references 


The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes 
by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
Aplonis Gould, 18 October 1836, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1836: 73. 
Aplornis Gould, [1 or 3 October] 1836, The Analyst, 17: 152. 
marginata, Aplonis, Gould, 1836, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1836: 73. 


238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 


Information and Instructions for Authors 


The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications; other authors 
should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be prepared in the 
format of recent parts of the Bulletin; manuscripts not prepared in accordance 
with these guidelines may be returned. For more detailed instructions see http:// 
iczn.org/content/instructions-authors. 

General. Applications are requests to the Commission to set aside or modify the 
Code’s provisions as they relate to a particular name or group of names when this 
appears to be in the interest of stability of nomenclature. Authors submitting cases 
should regard themselves as acting on behalf of the zoological community and the 
Commission will treat applications on this basis. Applicants should discuss their 
cases with other workers in the same field before submitting applications, so that they 
are aware of any wider implications and the likely reactions of other zoologists. 

Text. Formatted with double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs 
setting out the details of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal 
proposals. Text references should give dates and page numbers in parentheses, e.g. 
‘Daudin (1800, p. 49) described ...’. If the plenary power of the Commission is 
sought, this necessity should be clearly explained (with reference to the relevant 
Article of the Code). 

References. These should give all authors of a publication. Where possible, ten or 
more reasonably recent references should be given illustrating the usage of names 
that are to be conserved or given precedence over older names. The title of periodicals 
should be in full and in italics; number of volumes, parts, etc. should be in Arabic 
figures, separated by a colon from the page numbers. Book titles should be in italics 
and followed by the number of pages and plates, the publisher and place of publication. 

Submission of application: Applications should be submitted electronically prefer- 
ably by email (within the message or as an attachment) to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’. When 
submitted by post, one copy should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, 
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. The typescript should be accompanied by 
a disk with copy in IBM PC compatible format (disks and attachments to be in 
Word, rtf or ASCII text). It would also be helpful if applications were accompanied 
by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references where this is possible. 

The Commission’s Secretariat is very willing to advise on all aspects of the 
formulation of an application. 


Illustrations 

If a neotype designation is requested it is strongly advisable to submit an 
appropriate illustation in TIFF format of sufficiently high resolution for printing. 
Hardcopy figures will be accepted, at discretion of the Editor. It is desirable to 
illustrate both specimen and its label, with a scale bar. Furthermore, we are willing 
to consider illustrations of the organisms under discussion contributed simply to add 
visual interest to the applications. Line drawings should be high-resolution TIFFs at 
600-1200 dpi; photographs may be 300-400 dpi. If the files are difficult to send 
electronically, LZW compression of TIFF files allows recovery of original file quality. 
Please note that JPG format often introduces artefacts in printing, thus we are not 
able to accept JPGs. 


Contents — continued 


On Stegosaurus Marsh, 1877 (Dinosauria, Ornithischia): proposed replacement of 
the type species with Stegosaurus stenops Marsh, 1887 ee ee S.C.R. 
Maidment; K. Carpenter; V. Demirjian ; Mig gen 


Rulings of the Commission 

OPINION 2277 (Case 3504). Onthophagus rugulosus Harold, 1886 (Coieoptera: 
SCARABAEIDAE): Specific name conserved . 

OPINION 2278 (Case 3489). Chrysomela elongata Suiftian, 185 1 Geurtendy Deaton 
elongata; Insecta, Coleoptera): name conserved ; 

OPINION 2279 (Case 3488). Papilio danae Fabricius, 1775 lournente plots domes: 
Insecta, Lepidoptera, PIERIDAE): usage conserved by the suppression of Papilio 
danae Hufnagel, 1766 

OPINION 2280 (Case 3436). Psseneeaaiy Koahw. 1390 rasa. Humcioniete, 
Symphyta): generic name given precedence over Epitactus Forster, 1854. 

OPINION 2281 (Case 3507). Phylloporina Ulrich in Foerste, 1887 brine: 
Fenestrata, Phylloporinina): Retepora trentonensis Nicholson, 1875 designated as 
the type species. 

OPINION 2282 (Case 3502). Cokes nines ie. 1834 (currently Bevicions 
nummifer; Reptilia, Serpentes): specific name conserved . . . 

OPINION 2283 (Case 3390). Archaeopteryx lithographica von Mover, 1861 (awisy. 
conservation of usage by designation of a neotype . . . 

OPINION 2284 (Case 3499). Anthochaera Vigors & Horsfield, 1827 and Pi arinain: 
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1832 (Aves): usage conserved by suppression of the generic 
name Creadion Vieillot, 1816 

OPINION 2285 pe ites eri Cid: 1836 (aves STURMIDAB) spelling 
conserved . 


Information and Instructions for Authors 


213 


218 


220 


UES 


224 


226 


228 


230 


234 


236 


238 


eens 


SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES 


iin 


3 908 


ae 
Bacon 
ae 


ue 
eS 
So 


a 


AERO 
‘ — 


ei 


ae 
ae 


Oe 
aa 


Bae ee 
Ss 
Buea eRe NonueS 

Bean 


sane Ra Roos UD ROR Ea RU EREG aS 
SRN oe 


OS 
SEU ANN 
ee 


ae 


ee 
BOR 


RRNSU ERIN 
RRR 
RU 


as 
Suan 
RS 


es 


Lonth 


ae 


SR 


may 


Law ‘ ses : ee : hatin : ee ee ee 
g A r i oui Vi i i 3 a a | y : 4 RRS % x : eae 


Hero i i i if ou i i i i) 


OS 
Se 


_ Volume 68, Part 4,20 December 2011, pp. 239-334 : ISSN 0007-5167 


he Bulletin of 
4g400logical Nomenclature 


The Official Periodical 
of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 


2 
¥. 


THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a registered charity 
(no. 211944) based in the U.K. The annual subscription for 2012 is £210 or US$360 or €295, 
postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a subscription of £105 or 
US$180 or €145. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: 

The Executive Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

Natural History Museum 

Cromwell Road 

London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. +44 207 942 5653; e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) 

Electronic communication is preferred. Manuscripts sent by post should include a digital 

copy of the text and figures. 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


Officers 
President Dr J. van Tol (The Netherlands) 
Vice-President Prof. D. G. Fautin (U.S.A.) 
Executive Secretary Dr E. Michel (U.K.) 
Councillors indicated below with * 
Members 
Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga* Prof. S. Lim (Malaysia; Parasitology) 
(Spain; Coleoptera) Prof. A. Minelli (/taly; Myriapoda) 
Dr A. Ballerio (/taly; Coleoptera) Prof. P. K. L. Ng (Singapore; 
Dr N. G. Bogutskaya (Russia; Ichthyology) Crustacea, Ichthyology) 
Prof. P. Bouchet* (France; Mollusca) Dr T. Pape (Denmark; Diptera) 
Prof. D. J. Brothers Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera) 
(South Africa; Hymenoptera) Prof. D. J. Patterson (U.S.A.; Protista) 
Prof. D. G. Fautin (U.S.A.; Cnidaria) Dr R. Pyle* (U.S.A.; Ichthyology) 
Dr M. J. Grygier (Japan; Crustacea) Dr G. Rosenberg* (U.S.A.; Mollusca) 
Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) Prof. P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) 
Dr M. S. Harvey (Australia; Arachnida) Dr J. van Tol (The Netherlands; Odonata) 
Prof. J. Kojima (Japan; Hymenoptera) Dr J. E. Winston (U.S.A.; Bryozoa) 
Dr M. Kottelat (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Dr D. Yanega (U.S. A.; Entomology) 
Dr F.-T. Krell (U.S.A.; Coleoptera) Dr Z.-Q. Zhang (New Zealand, Acari) 


Dr S. O. Kullander (Sweden; Ichthyology) Prof. H. Zhou (China; Coleoptera) 
Prof. Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera) 
Secretariat 


Dr E. Michel (Executive Secretary and Bulletin Editor-in-Chief) 
Dr S. Nikolaeva (Bulletin Zoologist and Scientific Editor) 

S. Tracey (Bulletin Zoologist and Scientific Administrator) 

N. Dale-Skey Papilloud M.Sc. (Bulletin Zoologist) 

E. W. Baker (Webmaster and Development Officer) 


Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 
Dr M. Dixon (Chairman) 
C. Laws (Treasurer and Managing Director) 


Abstracts of Applications and Opinions, Comments in full and details of the names published 
in the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology are posted on the 
Commission’s website (http://iczn.org) 


Cover image: Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa (Linnaeus, 1758), the European mole cricket (Latin: 
gryllus — cricket, talpa — mole, from its fossorial limbs, fine hairs and subterranean habit). 
Widespread in the Western Palaearctic region and introduced into parts of the U.S.A. this 
insect can be an agricultural pest in significant numbers, although in the U.K. it is extremely 
rare and subject to a U.K. Biodiversity Action Plan (report sightings to g.beccaloni@ 
nhm.ac.uk). Detail from plate 456 of British Entomology: Original Drawings, vol. 10, by John 
Curtis (1862) (© Natural History Museum, London). 


© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2011 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 239 


BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


Volume 68, part 4 (pp. 239-334) 20 December 2011 


Notices 


(1) Applications and correspondence relating to applications to the Commission 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given on the inside of the 
front cover and on the Commission website. English is the official language of the 
Bulletin. Please take careful note of instructions to authors (present in a one or two 
page form in each volume and available online (at http://iczn.org/content/guidelines- 
case-preparation) as incorrectly formatted applications will be returned to authors 
for revision. The Commission’s Secretariat will answer general nomenclatural (as 
opposed to purely taxonomic) enquiries and assist with the formulation of applica- 
tions and, as far as it can, check the main nomenclatural references in applications. 
Correspondence should be sent by e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ where possible. 

(2) The Commission votes on applications eight months after they have been 
published, although this period is normally extended to enable comments to be 
submitted. Comments for publication relating to applications (either in support or 
against, or offering alternative solutions) should be submitted as soon as possible. 
Comments may be edited (see instructions for submission of comments at 
http://iczn.org/content/instructions-comments). 

(3) Requests for help and advice on the Code can be made direct to the 
Commission and other interested parties via the Internet. Membership of the 
Commission’s Discussion List is free of charge. You can subscribe and find out more 
about the list at http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list. 

(4) The Commission also welcomes the submission of general-interest articles on 
nomenclatural themes or nomenclatural notes on particular issues. These may deal 
with taxonomy, but should be mainly nomenclatural in content. Articles and notes 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary. 


New applications to the Commission 


The following new applications have been received since the last issue of the 
Bulletin (volume 68, part 3, 30 September 2011) went to press. Under Article 82 of 
the Code, the existing usage of names in the applications is to be maintained until the 
Commission’s rulings on the applications (the Opinions) have been published. 

CASE 3576: Oscinella Becker, 1909 (Insecta, Diptera, CHLOROPIDAE): proposed 
conservation by giving it precedence over Melanochaeta Bezzi, 1906 and Pachy- 
chaetina Hendel, 1907. M. von Tschirnhaus & E.P. Nartshuk. 

CASE 3577: ELATERIDAE Leach, 1815 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence 
Over CEBRIONIDAE Latreille, 1802. P.J. Johnson. 

CASE 3578: Copromyza fenestralis Fallén, 1820 (currently Pteremis fenestralis; 
Insecta, Diptera, SPHAEROCERIDAE): proposed conservation of usage by suppression of 
syntypes and designation of neotype. J. Rohacek. 


GMT HSON/4g 
JAN 29 Z2U1Z 


J iprmacnica “J 


240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


CASE 3579: Scarabaeus fimetarius Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed 
setting aside of the lectotype and designation of a neotype. R.B. Angus, C.J. Wilson 
& F.-T. Krell. 


William David Lindsay Ride (1926-2011) — Commissioner 
1963-2001, Chairman of the Editorial Committees for the 3rd 
and 4th Editions of the Code, President of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in 1973-1977 & 
1983-1989 


W.D.L. Ride, a member of the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature between 1963 and 2001, died in 
Australia on 6 November 2011. He served as President of the 
Commission from 1973 to 1977 and again from 1983 to 1989. 
His wide experience of public administration is credited by 
Melville (1995) as providing the successful bridge for the Commission to become a 
member of the IUBS (International Union of Biological Sciences) which has 
delegated the authority for the Commission as a representative international 
scientific body after the demise of the Congress of Zoology in 1972. He was further 
recognised for his considerable experience in drafting policy, which set the 
foundations for his chairmanship of the Editorial Committees for both the third 
and fourth editions of the Code. David Ride contributed significantly to nomen- 
clature, with his extensive service to the Commission, his publications of papers on 
the topic and guidance of the Commission through times of major transition over 
several decades. 

David Ride was a mammalogist and palaeontologist who had studied at the 
renowned Oxford school in vertebrate anatomy under E.S Goodrich. He published 
on the native mammals of Australia, and co-authored an index to the genera and 
species of fossil mammals described from Australia and New Guinea. He edited 
volumes on biological nomenclature and on endangered species in Australia. 

His professional career included extensive influence in Australian museums and 
academics. He became Director of the Western Australian Museum, Perth in 1957, 
at the same time he held the position of Reader in Zoology at the University of 
Western Australia. Jose I. dos R. Furtado, now a senior member of the International 
Trust for Zoological Nomenclature (ITZN), was an undergraduate at the University 
of Western Australia when Ride first took up his positions in Perth, and remembers 
Professor Ride as an inspiring teacher of vertebrate biology who brought evolution- 
ary biology to life by integrating structure with function. 

Professor Ride worked for the Australian Biological Resources Study, located 
within the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), 
in Canberra from 1974 tol980, and was Director in 1975. He also served as the Head 
of the School of Applied Science, Canberra College of Advanced Education from 
1982-87, and was appointed Principal of the College in 1987. Following his 
retirement, he became a Visiting Fellow at the Australian National at A until 
2002. Professor Ride was made a Member of the Order of Australia, an Avustralian 
order of chivalry, in 1984. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 241 


David Ride’s contributions to zoological nomenclature were monumental and live 
on in the legacy of the Code. The Commissioners and Members of the Trust extend 
sincere condolences to his family and friends. 


Melville, R.V. 1995. Towards stability in the names of animals: A history of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995. 92 pp. ITZN, London. 


Professor Frank A. Bisby (1945-2011), Director 
Catalogue of Life and Species 2000 
Frank A. Bisby was the initiator and director of 
the Catalogue of Life and Species 2000, and 
several other major biodiversity informatics pro- 
jects that were closely linked with the work of the 
ICZN. He died unexpectedly on 25 October, the 
day after the announcement of the release of the 
2011 edition of the Catalogue of Life (CoL). This 
dynamic database lists 1,370,276 species (with 
‘accepted names’ and limited synonymies) sourced from 101 databases that are 
validated by taxonomic specialists. It is widely seen as the most complete taxonomic 
e-infrastructure project for living organisms today. Frank was keen on collaboration 
with the ICZN and worked to ensure that the nomenclatural authority that will be 
available through ZooBank is linked with the taxon concepts presented in CoL. 

Frank Bisby was also Professor of Botany at Reading University, U.K. with a 
speciality in legumes. He was an inspirational teacher, who was particularly popular 
for his field courses. He had moved to Reading from a faculty position at 
Southampton University after finishing his PhD at Oxford. 

Frank Bisby was a leader with vision, bringing together teams of people to 
contribute skills in a global endeavour of cataloguing the world’s species. His 
contributions were enormous and he will be missed. 


Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st 
century and beyond 


Charles Davies Sherborn provided the bibliographic 
foundation for current zoological nomenclature with 
his magnum opus Jndex Animalium. In the 43 years he 
spent working on this extraordinary resource, he 
anchored our understanding of animal diversity 
through the published scientific record. No work has 
equalled it since and it is still in current, and critical, 
use. 

Until now, Sherborn’s contribution has been rec- 
ognised and relied upon by professional taxonomists 
worldwide but he has escaped the celebration of his 
accomplishment that is his due. This changed on 
Friday, 28 October 2011, with a symposium in his 
honour in the 150th year of his birth organised by the 


242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


ICZN, in collaboration with the Society for the History of Natural History at the 
Natural History Museum (NHM), London. The full day meeting included an 
international panel of experts on bibliography and biodiversity bioinformatics who 
linked a view of the past with an active debate on the future of the related fields. 

The symposium was structured with an introduction to Sherborn as a man, 
scientist and bibliographer, then provided historical context for taxonomic indexing 
from the 19'" century to today. Current tools and innovations were presented. The 
final sessions tackled the future of biological nomenclature, including shifting 
publishing modes and changing sociology of science in taxonomy. There were fifteen 
talks from distinguished speakers from around the world, and ten posters, including 
an exhibition of ‘Sherborniana’, or artefacts from Sherborn’s tenure at the NHM. 
The event was very well attended, with an audience of over 120 people present 
throughout most of the day. As the composition of the audience changed somewhat 
throughout the day, the number of people celebrating Sherborn was impressive. 

The symposium was dedicated to Professor Frank Bisby, whose untimely death a 
few days earlier had shocked and saddened the biodiversity informatics community. 
Frank had initiated and directed Species 2000 and the Catalogue of Life, ambitious 
global taxonomy projects that build on the foundation laid by Sherborn’s indexes. 

The global and temporal reach of this event is being extended through podcasts of 
all the talks, posters and discussion, including slides and poster downloads, and 
videos of all the talks available through this site: iczn.org/sherborn and 
http://backdoorbroadcasting.net/201 1/10/anchoring-biodiversity-information-from- 
sherborn-to-the-21st-century-and-beyond/. 

The event was organised and sponsored by the ICZN (Int'l Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature) and the Society for the History of Natural History, with 
significant sponsorship support from the Linnean Society, BHL-Europe (Biodiversity 
Heritage Library-Europe), Pensoft Publishers (ZooKeys), The NHM — Natural 
History Museum, and ViBRANT -— Virtual Biodiversity. 

The inaugural plenary talk was given by Neal Evenhuis, who provided personal 
and highly sympathetic insights into the incredible drive and bibliographic skills 
Sherborn had to harness in his effort to make an essentially universal index to all 
animal names. Evenhuis served as a Commissioner and President of the ICZN for 
many years, and is a self-described ‘index-aholic’ whose wit made Sherborn’s labours 
seem a natural endeavour, at least for those of a Herculean mindset. Gordon McOuat 
provided a sparkling overview of the evolution of nomenclatural codes and 
controversies in the decades around Sherborn, bringing the history of science to life. 
Edward Dickinson presented a detailed scrutiny of Sherborn and Richmond’s 
indexes in ornithology, a taxonomic best-case that illuminates problems that need 
attention in the larger whole of the corpus. Chris Thompson explained how research 
on the important (and beautiful!) megadiverse insect group Diptera has benefited 
from building an outstanding bibliographic index based on Sherborn’s original work, 
with modern tools and additions providing a resource of greater utility than even 
Sherborn could have imagined. Suzanne Pilsk, with extraordinary zing, described 
how the Smithsonian libraries have made Sherborn’s Index Animalium accessible 
online and how this is the dawn of a new age for bibliographic information access as 
we go from paper to bytes. This was followed by a companion talk from Nigel 
Robinson, who showed how Zoological Record’s Index of Organism Names 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 243 


integrated Index Animalium in collaboration with the Smithsonian libraries, creating 
a continuously updated bibliographic source for published names. 

The session covering current practice in bringing information into the modern age 
began with Chris Lyal’s pertinent observations on limitations of digitizing objects 
and information. Lyal underscored our current tendency to build forward from the 
past, using e-charged traditional methods with digital analogues of paper, rather than 
developing new tools that make the most of cybertechnology and assessment of 
future needs and opportunities. Henning Scholz gave a thorough overview of the 
monumental resource that the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) has become, 
increasing the efficiency of access to early published literature and increasing archival 
stability for historical works. David Remsen showed how GBIF’s (the Global 
Biodiversity Information Facility) 300 million records are linked through nomen- 
clatural and taxonomic authority files, thus is an expansion on Sherborn’s dream. In 
a tectonic talk presenting results of ICZN committee deliberation, Daphne Fautin, 
with Miguel Alonso-Zarazaga, detailed the requirements and opportunities for Lists 
of Available Names (LANs) to proceed through ICZN Article 79 to stabilise large 
taxonomic sections of nomenclature at once. Although it is not a light task to 
implement a LAN, a result is that ‘nomenclatural archaeology’ will find the footing 
pulled out from under it, thus increasing stability and transparency in scientific 
names of animals. 

In the final session Chris Freeland showed how museums and libraries are 
enhancing educational outreach, scholarly dissemination and archiving by pursuing 
a focused programme to make information electronic. Despite a volatile technology 
landscape, progress in scanning prints, manuscripts and specimens has been prodi- 
gious and benefits are irrefutable. Sandra Knapp got back to the source, suggesting 
that evolution or revolution is necessary to change the way taxonomists work and 
how we compile the ‘definitive references’. Knapp emphasised that modern tools 
allow, indeed require, the modern equivalent of the monograph to be broader and 
richer in data content and more regularly updated, and that the role of the 
taxonomist must become as a collaborative partner, not sole executer, in these works. 
Lyubomir Penev followed this with a very practical glimpse of what revolutionary 
e-tools look like, presenting the new work flow and publishing mechanism developed 
by the journal ZooKeys. He pointed out that technical tools can radically change 
the landscape for the persistent, intractable controversies of registration and 
e-publication across all biological nomenclature. Rod Page took no prisoners with his 
manifesto for a truly ‘open taxonomy’. His criticism that taxonomy today is only 
marginally open, not really digital and not notably linked was followed by 
suggestions of ways this could change with concerted focus and shared vision from 
the taxonomic and bibliographic community. 

The wrap-up plenary by Richard Pyle made a convincing case that, even in this 
time of major technological improvements across taxonomic science, the most 
revolutionary change is the means by which we manage and communicate infor- 
mation to the world. Pyle showed how a multitude of major taxonomic resources are 
all linked through taxonomy and nomenclature. The granddaddy of all the taxonomy 
projects, where it all comes home, is the GNA (Global Names Architecture), which 
will be the dynamic index to interconnect and streamline the entire taxonomic 
enterprise. Finally, a panel discussion was held under the banner ‘What Would 


244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


ss 


Fig. 1. Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond (1) Graham 
Higley, Head of NHM Libraries & Archives and BHL Chair, dedicates the symposium to Professor Frank 
Bisby, whose untimely death a few days before shocked the biodiversity informatics community; (2) Neal 
Evenhuis presents an insightful plenary on the mind of an indexer, with a cartoon drawn by Sherborn in 
the background showing his exhaustion at the end of his Herculean task; (3) Daphne Fautin and Miguel 
Alonso-Zarazaga present the results of ICZN Committee deliberation on Lists of Available Names 
(LANs, Article 79) with a graphic indicating the tension between taxonomic and purely nomenclatural 
inclusiveness of LANs; (4) Suzanne Pilsk describes the bibliographic and informatics challenges of getting 
Sherborn’s Index Animalium online; (5) Chris Freeland puts Sherborn in his crystal ball for the future of 
biodiversity publishing; (6) Richard Pyle raises a fist in support of Global Names Architecture, showing 
how taxonomy and names are the nexus for all biodiversity information in his closing plenary talk; (7) 
Chris Thompson fires another fierce and insightful question; (8) the full panel of speakers under the 
heading WWSD? What would Sherborn Do? From left to right: Suzanne Pilsk, Chris Lyal, Henning Scholz, 
Edward Dickinson, Neil Evenhuis, Daphne Fautin, Sandy Knapp, Lyubomir Penev, Rod Page, Chris 
Thompson, Chris Freeland, Gordon McOuat, (behind podium Richard Pyle, David Remsen). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 245 


Sherborn Do? with all the speakers taking questions from the audience. This 
provided a lively debate on the importance of names, the role of publishing and the 
future for scientific bibliography. It was agreed that we have powerful new tools at 
our disposal, but the major challenge for the future is the required sociological shifts 
in how taxonomists work and how information is presented. Sherborn would have 
been proud. 


Introduction to the Programme, Dedication to Frank Bisby 


Ellinor Michel (ICZN) & Graham Higley (BHL & NHM Libraries) 


Session 1: History of Taxonomic Literature, Indexing and Traditional Taxonomic 
Nomenclature 


Opening Keynote: SHNH Annual Ramsbottom Lecture Neal Evenhuis (Bishop Museum): 
Sherborn: Work history and impact of bibliography, dating and zoological informatics 
Gordon McOuat (University of King’s College, Halifax): Sherborn’s context: Cataloguing 
nature 

Edward Dickinson (Aves Press): Reinforcing the foundations: Filling in the bibliographic gaps in 
the historical legacy 

F. Christian Thompson (Smithsonian) & Thomas Pape (Copenhagen): Systema Dipterorum: 
Sherborn’s critical influence in getting information control over a megadiverse group 

Smithsonian Institution Libraries (Suzanne Pilsk, Martin Kalfatovic & Joel Richard): 
Unlocking the Index Animalium: From paper slips to bytes and bits 

Nigel Robinson (Zoological Record) Sherborn’s Index Animalium integration into ION: access 
to all 


Session 2: Current Taxonomic Practices 


Chris Lyal (NHM): Digitising legacy taxonomic literature: processes, products and using the 
output 

Henning Scholz (Museum fiir Naturkunde Berlin): BHL-Europe. Tools and Services for Legacy 
Taxonomic Literature 

David Remsen (GBIF): Biodiversity Informatics: GBIF’s role in linking information through 
scientific names 

Daphne Fautin (Univ. Kansas/ICZN) & Miguel Alonso-Zarazaga (MNCN-CSIC/ICZN): 
LANs: Lists of Available Names — a new generation for stable taxonomic names in zoology? 


Session 3: Future of Biological Nomenclature 


Chris Freeland (Missouri Botanical Garden): Preserving digitized taxonomic data: problems 
and solutions for print, manuscript and specimen data 

Sandra Knapp (NHM/IAPT/ITZN): New workflows for describing and naming organisms 

Lyubomir Penev (Pensoft Publishers): ZooKeys: Streamlining the registration-to-publication 
pipeline 

Rod Page (University of Glasgow): Towards an open taxonomy 


Closing Keynote and wrap-up plenary discussion. Richard Pyle (Bishop Museum): Towards a 
Global Names Architecture: The future of indexing scientific names 


246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


ICZN meeting on electronic publication 


A public meeting to discuss the proposed amendment on electronic (e-) publication 
was held following the Sherborn symposium on Saturday 29 October, 2011 in the 
Natural History Museum, London. Approximately 30 taxonomists, librarians and 
publishers attended, including eight current Commissioners (Alonso-Zarazaga, 
Bogutskaya, Fautin, Krell, Pape, Rosenberg, van Tol, Winston) and one ex- 
Commissioner and member of the 4th Code Editorial Committee (Thompson). 
Authors of the most strongly argued published Comments on e-publication, both pro 
and con, were present. The meeting was chaired by Ellinor Michel, ICZN Executive 
Secretary and Gary Rosenberg, Chair of the 5th Code Editorial Committee. The 
meeting began with a presentation from Sandra Knapp, Chair of the Botanical 
Nomenclature Committee and ITZN Member (Trustee), on how e-publication was 
debated and voted through in the Botanical Congress in Melbourne in July of this 
year. Details of how e-publication should or should not be implemented in zoology 
were then discussed vigorously by all attending until a break after three hours. The 
discussion was wide-ranging and passionate. On reconvening, the group maintained 
its breadth of representation though with numbers slightly reduced. After a short 
period at the start of the meeting that might be described informally as a bun fight, 
discussion was respectful and very constructive. A focused set of questions for the 
Commission resulted. 

Straw votes were taken on summary statements from the discussion, with the 
following results: 

Should registration in an official register and e-publication be mandatorily 
coupled (with the proviso that there is a working registration mechanism, such as 
ZooBank)? 

YES: 13, NO: 8, ABSTAIN: 3 

Is this the time to recognise e-publication for nomenclatural acts? (Or stated in 
other words, whatever the mechanism, are we in favour of working towards a way to 
allow e-publication?) 

YES: 23, NO: 1, ABSTAIN: 1 

Should we aim for Jan 2012 as the start date for allowing e-publication regardless 
of the status of registration (with a retroactive implementation if the e-publication 
amendment passes due to the required voting period)? 

YES: 20, NO: 1, ABSTAIN: 0 

The group made several suggestions of items for the Commission to consider in 
revising the amendment for e-publication in preparation for a vote: 

(1) Is it consistent with the principles of the amendment to have that the proposed 
changes in Article 8 & 9 be voted on separately from those in Article 10? The 
Commission was requested to address this as a purely procedural question. The 
content of Articles 8 and 9 (on publishing and archiving) was felt to be far less 
problematic than that of 10 (on registration), especially as ZooBank remains an 
unproven, though promising, infrastructure of scale. 

(2) Is it consistent with the principles of the amendment to have staggered start 
dates, with a later start date for registration than for e-publication? The group agreed 
that it should be left open for the Commission to decide when registration is ready, 
and this should be independent of e-publication for the time being. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 247 


(3) Mechanisms for how and when to move registration forward need to be 
addressed as a matter of priority. 

(4) Should having an ISBN or ISSN be added as a requirement for the availability 
of an electronic work (as done in Botany)? 

(5) The proposals drafted for the e-publication discussion by the botanists were 
considered to be well-thought out in general (Chapman, A.D., Turland, N.J. & 
Watson, M.F. 2010. Report of the Special Committee on Electronic Publication. 
Taxon, 59(6): 1853-1862) and should be considered in detail by the ICZN Commis- 
sioners. 

(6) Recommendation 8C was felt to be problematic in two ways: 1) it combines two 
logically separate recommendations; and 2) the first of these ‘Jdeally names and 
nomenclatural acts published in electronic works should also be published simul- 
taneously on paper.’ conveys that electronic publication is ‘second class’, and also will 
result in the creation of two competing simultaneous versions, from which it will be 
difficult to choose a single version of record. One solution would be just to delete the 
first half so that it reads: 

Recommendation 8C. Electronic works. Electronic works should be structured to 
allow automated indexing and data extraction. 


248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 


Financial Report for the year 2010 


The main work of the Commission during the year was on applications from 
zoologists in 24 countries to resolve problems of zoological nomenclature. These were 
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, together with Opinions 
(rulings) made by the Commission on other cases. Further applications were under 
consideration. Advice was given by the Commission’s Secretariat in response to a 
large number of enquiries on matters of nomenclature from zoologists worldwide. 

Total income received by the Trust consisted of £32,835 for all publications 
produced by the Commission, £50,586 from appeal and general donations, £2,774 in 
bank interest and investment income, and £15,542 capital gain on the sale of 
investments and £6,988 from special events and lecture fees bringing the total income 
for the year to £108,725. 

Expenditure in 2010 was £99,917 on salaries and fees of the Secretariat of the 
Commission, £2,918 on appeal expenditure and ZooBank travel, £8,206 for printing 
the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and for the distribution of all publications, 
and £972 for office expenses and depreciation of office equipment, bringing the total 
expenditure to £112,013. 

The Secretariat of the Commission was again housed in the Natural History 
Museum, London, whom we thank for their continuing support. The Trust wishes to 
express its thanks to all the donors listed below who have contributed to the 
continuation of its work during the year for the international zoological and 
palaeontological community. 


Donations and grants were received from: 


American Association of Zoological Nomenclature 

Canadian Society of Zoologists 

Coleopterists’ Society 

The Earl of Cranbrook 

Entomological Society of America 

Institute Royale des Sciences Naturales de Belgique, Brussels 
Japanese Society of Systematic Zoology 

Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab 

Peter Luff 

Malacological Society of London 

Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris 

NCB Naturalis, the Netherlands Centre for Biodiversity, Leiden 
Pan-European Species-directories Infrastructure (PEST) 
Senckenberg Gesellschaft fiir Naturforschung, Frankfurt 
University of Oslo 

University of Reading (4D4Life) 

Peter T. Warren 

Baroness Young of Old Scone 

Donors to the marathon run by Justin Warhurst on behalf of the ICZN 


C. Laws, Secretary and Managing Director 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


249 


INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 
INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 


31 DECEMBER 2010 


Income 


SALE OF PUBLICATIONS 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature £32,250 
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 456 
Official Lists and Indexes 100 
Centenary History 20 

32,835 


GRANTS AND DONATIONS 

INTEREST RECEIVED 

INVESTMENT INCOME 

CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF INVESTMENTS 
SPECIAL EVENTS 

DECLUREAFEERS 


Expenditure 


SALARIES, NATIONAL INSURANCE AND FEES 
OFFICE EXPENSES 
PRINTING OF BULLETIN AND DISTRIBUTION OF 


PUBLICATIONS 
APPEAL EXPENDITURE INCLUDING TRAVEL 


DEFICIT FOR THE YEAR CARRIED TO BALANCE 
i eb la 


50,586 
Ms 
2,709 
15,542 
6,638 
350 


108,725 


ba Bas le 
972 


8,206 
2,918 


112,013 


(£3,288) 


250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


Case 3567 


Bulimus lineatus Bruguiére, 1789 (Gastropoda, UROCOPTIDAE; currently 
Macroceramus lineatus) and Bulimus lineatus Draparnaud, 1801 
(Gastropoda, ACICULIDAE; currently Acicula lineata): proposed 
conservation of specific names 


Francisco W. Welter-Schultes 


Zoologisches Institut, Berliner Strasse 28, 37073 Gottingen, Germany 
(e-mail: fwelter@gwdg.de) 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.5, 23.10, 57.2.2 and 81 
of the Code, is to conserve two specific gastropod names Bulimus lineatus Bruguiere, 
1789 (Pulmonata: UROCOPTIDAE, currently Macroceramus lineatus, from Haiti) and 
Bulimus lineatus Draparnaud, 1801 (currently Acicula lineata, Caenogastropoda: 
ACICULIDAE, from central Europe) by ruling under the plenary power to disregard 
their primary homonymy. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; UROCOPTIDAE; ACICULIDAE; Macro- 
ceramus lineatus; Acicula lineata; caenogastropods; stylommatophoran pulmonate 
snails; Europe; Haiti. 


1. Bulimus lineatus Bruguiére, 1789 (in Bruguiére, 1792, p. 323; Gastropoda, 
UROCOPTIDAE, currently Macroceramus lineatus, from Haiti) and Bulimus lineatus 
Draparnaud, 1801 (p. 67; Gastropoda, ACICULIDAE, currently Acicula lineata, from 
Europe) are primary homonyms (Articles 53.3, 57.2 of the Code). The identities of 
both nominal taxa are not disputed. 

2. Both names are currently used for ‘valid’ species. Acicula lineata is a frequent 
and important species from Europe, where it is distributed from southern France to 
southern Germany and eastern Austria (Boeters et al., 1989, p. 60, Falkner et al., 
2002, p. 69). It is the type species of Acicula Hartmann, 1821 (ACICULIDAE). 
Macroceramus lineatus is a common species in Haiti (Pilsbry, 1904, p. 122, Wetherbee 
& Clench, 1984, p. 10, Richardson, 1991, p. 145). 

3. These two species have not been considered as congeneric after 1899. They 
belong to different taxonomic groups: Acicu/a Hartmann, 1821 is a caenogastropod, 
while Macroceramus Guilding, 1828, a stylommatophoran pulmonate snail. These 
genera live in different regions without overlap: Macroceramus in Mexico, Central 
America and the Caribbean, Acicula in Europe, the Caucasian region and northern 
Africa. 

4. Because Acicula lineata was considered a very important species, Falkner et al. 
(2002, p. 69) intended to fix Bulimus lineatus Bruguiére, 1789 as a nomen oblitum 
under Article 23.9.2, and listed the 25 references for Acicula lineata as required by 
Article 23.9.1.2. The authors argued that Bulimus lineatus Bruguiére, 1789 had not 
been used since 1899, but overlooked the fact that the name had been used by Pilsbry 
(1904, p. 122) and subsequent authors in the genus Macroceramus. Terrestrial 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 251 


gastropod species from Haiti are much more rarely mentioned in the recent literature 
and internet resources than species from central Europe, which explains why its usage 
was not detected in 2002. 

5. Since the action of Falkner et al. (2002) was taken in error, the case has to be 
referred to the Commission under Article 23.10, and it is proposed to conserve the 
names under Article 23.9.5 of the Code. 

6. Boeters et al. (1989, p. 60) argued that Draparnaud (1805, p. 57) established 
Auricula lineata as a new species, and that the 1801 name could be suppressed to 
avoid homonymy with Bulimus lineatus Bruguiére, 1789. However Draparnaud 
(1805) had expressly used the 1801 name, so this option would have created 
confusion in Europe and was rejected by subsequent authors (Falkner et al., 2002). 

7. It is proposed to disregard the primary homonymy and regard both names as 
available. An alternative solution would be to suppress the Haitian name, because the 
European name has been used more frequently. However, for students and scientists 
in Haiti suppression of the Haitian name may result in further confusion. 

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary power to rule that the name /ineatus Draparnaud, 1801, as 
published in the binomen Bulimus lineatus, is not invalid by reason of being a 
junior primary homonym of /ineatus Bruguiére, 1789, as published in the 
binomen Bulimus lineatus; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) lineatus Bruguiére, 1789, as published in the binomen Bulimus lineatus; 
(b) lineatus Draparnaud, 1801, as published in the binomen Bulimus lineatus, 

with the endorsement that is not invalid by reason of being a junior 
primary homonym of J/ineatus Bruguiére, 1789, as published in the 
binomen Bulimus lineatus, as ruled in (1) above. 


Acknowledgements 


Iam thankful to C. Audibert, R. Bank, J. Gerber, F. Giusti and I. Richling for their 
advice and critically checking the manuscript. 


References 


Boeters, H.D., Gittenberger, E. & Subai, P. 1989. Die Aciculidae (Mollusca, Gastropoda, 
Prosobranchia). Zoologische Verhandelingen, 252: 1-234. (http://www.repository. 
naturalis.nl/record/3 17686) 

Bruguiére, J.G. 1792. Encyclopédie méthodique. Histoire naturelle des vers. Tome premier. 
[ABE-CON]. pp. [1-3], j-xviij [= 1-18], 1-757. Panckoucke, Paris. (http://resolver.sub.uni- 
goettingen.de/purl?PPN583853528) 

Draparnaud, J.P.R. 1801. Tableau des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France. — 
pp. [1-2], 1-116. Montpellier, Paris. (Renaud; Bossange, Masson & Besson). 
(http://www. biodiversitylibrary.org/item/47270) 

Draparnaud, J.P.R. [1805]. Histoire naturelle des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France. 
Ouvrage posthume. Avec XIII planches. pp. [1-9], j-viy [= 1-8], 1-134, [Pl. 1-13] 
(http://www. biodiversitylibrary.org/item/46572) 

Falkner, G., Ripken, T.E.J. & Falkner, M. 2002. Mollusques continentaux de France. Liste de 
référence annotée et bibliographie. Collection Patrimoines Naturels, 52. pp. [1-2], 1-350, 
[1-3]. 


252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


Guilding, L. 1828. Observations on the zoology of the Caribean Islands. Zoological Journal, 
4: 164-175. 

Hartmann, W. 1821. System der Erd- und FluBschnecken der Schweiz. Mitvergleichender 
Aufzahlung aller auch in den benachbarten Laindern, Deutschland, Frankreich und Italien 
sich vorfindenden Arten. Neue Alpina, 1: 194-268, Taf. I-II [= 1-2]. Winterthur. 

Pilsbry, H.A. 1904. Manual of Conchology, structural and systematic. With illustrations of the 
species. Second Series: Pulmonata. Vol. XVI [= 16]. Urocoptide, Achatinide. — pp. I-XL 
[= 1-40], 1-329, Pl. 1-37 (http://www. biodiversitylibrary.org/item/16305) 

Richardson, C.L. 1991. Urocoptidae: Catalog of species. Tryonia, 22: 1 [= 1], 1-245. 

Wetherbee, D.K. & Clench, W.J. 1984. Three new species of Macroceramus (Mollusca: 
Urocoptidae) from the Dominican Republic. Caribbean Journal of Science, 20 (1/2): 9-12. 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 68: 159. 
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 


should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 253 


Case 3569 


Limax fasciatus Razoumowsky, 1789 (LiMAcIDAE) and Limax fasciatus 
Nilsson, 1823 (currently Arion fasciatus, ARIONIDAE): proposed 
conservation of both specific names (Gastropoda, Stylommatophora) 


Ted von Proschwitz 


Naturhistoriska Museet, Géteborg, Sweden 
(e-mail: ted.v.proschwitz@vgregion.se) 


Gerhard Falkner 


Staatliches Museum ftir Naturkunde Stuttgart, Germany 
(e-mail: Falkner@malaco.de) 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.5 and 23.10 of the 
Code, is to conserve the specific name of Arion (Carinarion) fasciatus (Nilsson, 1823) 
(ARIONIDAE), Originally published in the combination Limax fasciatus as a primary 
homonym of Limax fasciatus Razoumowsky, 1789 (LIMACIDAE). The two names have 
not been considered congeneric since the 19th century. We propose to conserve the 
name Limax fasciatus Nilsson, 1823, by ruling that the name is not invalid by reason 
of being a junior primary homonym. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; Pulmonata; LIMACOIDEA; LIMACI- 
DAE; ARIONOIDEA; ARIONIDAE; Limax; Arion; Carinarion; Limax fasciatus; Arion 
fasciatus; slugs. 


1. The name Arion (Carinarion) fasciatus (Nilsson, 1823) has been used world-wide 
for many decades to refer unambiguously to a well-known common and widely 
distributed species of land slug, which is also of importance in the applied sciences 
(e.g. Godan, 1983; Barker, 2002; South, 1992). The prevailing usage of this name is 
demonstrated in the 25 works cited in Falkner et al. (2002, p. 141, note 269). 
Additional citations demonstrating usage include Walden (1955), Lohmander (1959), 
Hudec (1960), Chichester & Getz (1969), Getz & Chichester (1971); Grossu (1970), 
Wiktor (1973, 1996), Riedel & Wiktor (1974), McCracken & Selander (1980), 
Reischiitz (1986), Backeljau et al. (1997), Schmid (1997), Turgeon et al. (1998), 
Jordaens et al. (2002) and Geenen et al. (2006). In Geenen et al. (2006) the three 
species of the subgenus Carinarion are synonymised under Arion fasciatus. This 
emphasises the necessity to conserve Nilsson’s name. There are also multiple other 
examples of usages, especially in the faunistic literature. A list of additional 50 
references demonstrating the usage of the name Arion fasciatus is held by the 
Commission Secretariat. 

2. Arion (Carinarion) fasciatus (Nilsson, 1823) was originally described as Limax 
fasciatus Nilsson, 1823 (p. 3). This was a junior primary homonym of Limax fasciatus 


254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


Razoumowsky, 1789 (p. 267), and should normally have been regarded as perma- 
nently invalid. With the aim of preserving the current usage of the combination Arion 
fasciatus (Nilsson), an action was taken in accordance with Article 23.9.2 of the Code 
by Falkner et al. (2002, p. 141, note 269) and Limax fasciatus Razoumowsky, 1789 
was declared a nomen oblitum. We recently found that this action was taken in 
error and that the conditions of the relevant Articles were not met. The name 
Limax fasciatus Razoumowsky, 1789, has been used as valid at least twice after 1899. 
Taylor (1906, p. 266) used it in the combination Limax maximus var. fasciata 
Razoumowsky, 1789, to denote a variety of Limax maximus Linnaeus, 1758, and 
Alzona (1971, p. 149) used it in the combination Limax albipes fasciatus 
Razoumowsky, 1789, to denote a subspecies of Limax albipes Dumont & Mortillet, 
1853 Gan Dumont & Mortillet, 1852-1854). In such a case, Article 23.10 of the Code 
(Erroneous reversal of precedence) requires reference to the Commission. 

3. Meanwhile the perception of Limax fasciatus Razoumowsky, 1789 has changed. 
A working-group of the Staatliches Museum fiir Naturkunde Stuttgart (Sektion 
Malakologie) has undertaken research in the type locality near Lausanne, in order to 
clarify the identity of that unjustly neglected nominal taxon. As a result of the 
historical studies of Grossenbacher (1990) the type locality could be more precisely 
defined and it was found that the species is sufficiently described to be recognised in 
the field. A large revision is in preparation and from preliminary results it seems very 
likely that this early name for an alpine Limax needs to be revalidated. Up to now no 
other available names which could potentially be applied to Razoumowsky’s Limax 
species have been identified. We thus think it desirable to reinstate its priority over 
Limax fasciatus Nilsson, 1823, and then deal with the latter junior homonym by 
recourse to a different provision of the Code. 

4. According to modern taxonomic views there is no conflict or possible confusion 
of Limax fasciatus Nilsson, 1823 with Limax fasciatus Razoumowsky, 1789. Shortly 
after its description Limax fasciatus Nilsson, 1823 was recognised as belonging to the 
genus Arion A. Férusac, 1819. In the 19th century it was consistently placed in this 
genus, either as a valid species or as a synonym, e.g. by C. Pfeiffer (1828, p. 11), 
Nordenskidld & Nylander (1856, p. 3); Westerlund (1865, p. 27), Collinge (1892, p. 
77). Thereafter the two species have never been included in the same genus. 
Introducing a replacement name for Limax fasciatus Nilsson, 1823, in general use as 
Arion fasciatus (Nilsson, 1823), would cause considerable confusion. Article 23.9.5 of 
the Code (names not considered congeneric after 1899) states that such a case should 
be referred to the Commission. The present application aims to conserve the 
prevailing usage in the interests of stability and universality of nomenclature. 

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to rule that reversal of precedence of Limax fasciatus Razoumowsky, 1789 and 
Limax fasciatus Nilsson, 1823 by Falkner et al. (2002, p. 141, note 269) was 
erroneous and the priority of Limax fasciatus Razoumowsky, 1789 is main- 
tained; 

(2) to use its plenary power to rule that the specific name Limax fasciatus Nilsson, 
1823, is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of Limax 
fasciatus Razoumowsky, 1789; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 255 


(a) fasciatus Nilsson, 1823, as published in the binomen Limax fasciatus, with 
the endorsement that it is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary 
homonym of Limax fasciatus Razoumowsky, 1789; 

(b) fasciatus Razoumowsky, 1789, as published in the binomen Limax 
fasciatus. 


References 


Alzona, C. 1971. Malacofauna Italica. Catalogo e bibliografia dei Molluschi viventi, terrestri 
e d’acqua dolce. Atti della Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civico di Storia 
Naturale di Milano, 111: 433 pp., 1 p. Errata. 

Backeljau, Th., De Bruyn, L., De Wolf, H., Jordaens, K., Van Dongen, S. & Winnepenninckx, 
B. 1997. Allozyme diversity in slugs of the Carinarion complex (Mollusca, Pulmonata). 
Heredity, 78: 445-451. 

Barker, G.M. (Ed.). 2002. Molluscs as crop pests. XII, 468 pp. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, 
U.K 


Chichester, L.F. & Getz, L.L. 1969. The zoogeography and ecology of Arionid and Limacid 
slugs introduced into northeastern North America. Malacologia, 7(2/3): 313-346. 

Collinge, W.E. 1892. A Review of the Arionidae of the British Isles. The Conchologist, 2(3): 
56-66, (4): 76-83. 

Dumont, F. & Mortillet, G. de. 1852—1854. Histoire naturelle des Mollusques terrestres et d’eau 
douce vivants et fossiles de la Savoie et du bassin du Leman. Bulletin de la Société 
d Histoire naurelle de Savoie, 2 [1852]: 14-142; 3 [1853]: 1-78; Annales de la Société 
d Histoire naturelle de Savoie, 1854: 81-152, 239-248. Chambéry. [Separatum: pp. 1-270. 
Geneve]. 

Falkner, G., Ripken, Th. E.J. & Falkner, M. 2002. Mollusques continentaux de France. Liste 
de Référence annotée et Bibliographie. Collection Patrimoines Naturels, 52: 350 pp. 
Getz, L.L. & Chichester, L.F. 1971. Introduced European slugs. The Biologist, 53(3): 118-127. 
Geenen, S., Jordaens, K. & Backeljau, Th. 2006. Molecular systematics of the Carinarion 
complex (Mollusca: Gastropoda: Pulmonata): a taxonomic riddle caused by a mixed 

breeding system. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 89(4): 589-604. 

Godan, D. 1983. Pest slugs and snails. Biology and control. [Translated from the German by S. 
Gruber.] 445 pp. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 

Grossenbacher, K. 1990. Die Entdeckung des Fadenmolches durch Graf Gregor Razoumowsky 
in der Schweiz. Jahrbuch des Naturhistorischen Museums Bern, 10 [1987/1989]: 151-167. 

Grossu, A.V. 1970. Revizuirea speciilor genului Arion Férussac in Romania (Gastropoda, 
Arionidae). Comunicarile de Zoologie, Societatea de Stiinte Biologice din Romdnia: 62-74. 

Hudec, V. 1960. Rozdily na pohlavnich organech. plzaki Arion circumscriptus Johnst. a Arion 
fasciatus (Nilss.). Casopis Narodniho Musea (Praha), Odd. pfir., 129(2): 204-205. 

Jordaens, K., Van Dongen, S., Van Riel, P., Geenen, S., Verhagen, R. & Backeljau, Th. 2002. 
Multivariate morphometrics of soft body parts in terrestrial slugs: comparison between 
two datasets, error assessment and taxonomic implications. Biological Journal of the 
Linnean Society, 75(4): 533-542. 

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 

Lohmander, H. 1959. Faunistiskt faltarbete i vastra och norra Jylland 1954-57. Landmollusk- 
erna. Géteborgs Naturhistoriska Museum Arstryck, 1959: 33-104. 

McCracken, G.F. & Selander, R.K. 1980. Self-fertilization and monogenic strains in natural 
populations of terrestrial slugs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 
77(1): 684-688. 

Nilsson, S. 1823. Historia Molluscorum Sveciae terrestrium et fluviatilium breviter delineata. 
Tit., XX, 124 pp. J.H. Schuboth, Lundae. [For the publication date see B.B. Woodward 
1924, Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 16: 23.] 

Nordenskidld, A.E. & Nylander, A.E. 1856. Finlands Mollusker. Tit., XVIII, 114, [2] pp., 7 pls. 
Simeli, Helsingfors. 

Pfeiffer, C. 1828. Naturgeschichte deutscher Land- und Stisswasser-Mollusken. Dritte Abthei- 
lung: VI, 84 pp., 8 Taf. Grossherzogl. Sachs. privil. Landes-Industrie-Comptoir, Weimar. 


256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


Razoumowski, G. de. 1789. Histoire naturelle du Jorat et de ses environs; Et celle des trois Lacs 
de Neufchatel, Morat et Bienne; Précédées d’un Essai sur le Climat, les Productions, le 
Commerce, les Animaux de la partie du Pays de Vaud ou de la Suisse Romande, qui entre 
dans le plan de cet Ouvrage, Tome premier. [4], XVI, 322 pp. Jean Mourer, Lausanne. 
[Mollusca: pp. 266—278.] E 

Reischiitz, P.L. 1986. Die Verbreitung der Nacktschnecken Osterreichs (Arionidae, Milacidae, 
Limacidae, Agriolimacidae, Boettgerillidae) — (Supplement 2 des Catalogus Faunae 
Austriae). Sitzungsberichte der Gsterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, math.- 
naturw. KL, Abt. I, 195(1/5): 67-190. | 

Riedel, A. & Wiktor, A. 1974. Arionacea — Slimaki krazatkowate i Slinikowate (Gastropoda: 
Stylommatophora). Fauna Polski, vol. 2. 140 pp. Panstwowe wydawnictwo Naukowe, 
Warszawa. 

Schmid, G. 1997. ,,Malakologische Zuckungen“’ Momentaufnahmen zur Molluskenfauna 
Baden-Wirttembergs. Veréffentlichungen fiir Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege in Baden- 
Wiirttemberg, 71/72(2): 719-858. 

South, A. 1992. Terrestrial Slugs: Biology, ecology and control. X, 428 pp. Chapman & Hall, 
London. 

Taylor, J.W. 1906. Monograph of the land- and freshwater Mollusca of the British Isles, vol. 2 
(Part 12). Pp. 225-280 & 1-16, pls. 15, 22, 23, 25. Taylor Brothers, Leeds. 

Turgeon, D.D., Quinn, J.F. (Jr.), Bogan, A.E., Coan, E.V., Hochberg, F.G., Lyons, W.G., 
Mikkelsen, P.M., Neves, R.J., Roper, C.F.E., Rosenberg, G., Roth, B., Scheltema, A., 
Thompson, F.G., Vecchione, M. & Williams, J.D. 1998. Common and scientific names of 
aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks, 2°° edition. American 
Fisheries Society, Special Publication, 26: IX, 526 pp. Bethesda, Maryland. 

Waldén, H.W. 1955. The land Gastropoda of the vicinity of Stockholm. Arkiv fér Zoologi, 
(2)7(21): 391-448, 1 pl. 

Westerlund, C.A. 1865. Sveriges land- och sétvatten-mollusker. [4], 142 pp. Gleerups, Lund. 

Wiktor, A. 1973. Die Nacktschnecken Polens. Monografie Fauny polski, 1: 182 pp., 94 pp. 
illustrations, | p. table of contents. Polska Akademia Nauk, Warszawa-Krakow. 

Wiktor, A. 1996. The Slugs of the Former Yugoslavia (Gastropoda terrestria nuda — 
Arionidae, Milacidae, Limacidae, Agriolimacidae). Annales zoologici, 46(1/2): 1-110. 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 68: 160. 
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 


should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 257 


Case 3568 


Stirpulina Stoliczka, 1870 (Mollusca, Bivalvia, Anomalodesmata, 
CLAVAGELLIDAE): proposed conservation by suppression of Tubolana 
Bivona Bernardi, 1832 


Martyn E.Y. Low 


Department of Marine and Environmental Sciences, Graduate School of 
Engineering and Science, University of the Ryukyus, 1 Senbaru, Nishihara, 
Okinawa 903-0213, Japan (e-mail: m.low@me.com) 


Be date 


Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research, Department of Biological Sciences, 
National University of Singapore, Block S6, Science Drive 2, #03—01, 
Singapore 117546, Republic of Singapore (e-mail: dbstsk@nus.edu.sg) 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 and Recommendation 
23A of the Code, is to conserve the genus name Stirpulina Stoliczka, 1870 for a group 
of watering pot shells. The genus name Stirpulina is in widespread and current use. 
This name is threatened by the little-used senior subjective synonym Tubolana Bivona 
Bernardi, 1832. It is proposed that the name Stirpulina be conserved by the 
suppression of Tubolana. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Bivalvia; Anomalodesmata; CLAVAGELLOIDEA; 
CLAVAGELLIDAE; Stirpulina; Tubolana; Stirpulina coronata; Tubolana digitata; watering 
pot shells; Upper Cretaceous; Recent. 


1. Bivona Bernardi (1832, pp. 55, 56) established the genus name Tubolana for a 
single new fossil species Tubolana digitata Bivona Bernardi, 1832 (pp. 56, 57), the 
type species by monotypy. This name was also spelt as Tubulana ditata (p. 56) in the 
original publication. All subsequent publications have used the spelling Tubolana 
digitata (e.g. di Monterosato, 1877, p. 40; Smith, 1962, p. 170; Keen & Smith, 1969, 
p. N858; Stallwood, 1995, p. 88). 

2. The species name Tubolana digitata Bivona Bernardi, 1832 has not been used as 
a valid name since it was first synonymised with the fossil species Clavagella bacillaris 
Deshayes, 1830 (pp. 239, 240) by di Monterosato, 1877 (p. 40). This synonymy has 
not been disputed (e.g. Smith, 1962; Keen & Smith, 1969; Stallwood, 1995). 

3. Stoliczka (1870, pp. xv, 27, 28) established the generic name Stirpulina for two 
fossil species: Clavagella coronata Deshayes, 1824 (pp. 8, 9) and Clavagella bacillaris 
Deshayes, 1830. Clavagella coronata is the type species by original designation 
(Stoliczka, 1870, p. xv). 

4. The genus name Tubolana Bivona Bernardi, 1832 is a senior subjective synonym 
of Stirpulina Stoliczka, 1870 as the type species of Tubolana (T. digitata) is a junior 
subjective synonym of a species included in Stirpulina (Clavagella bacillaris; see 
Stallwood, 1995, p. 88). 


258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


5. The genus Stirpulina is currently composed of fourteen fossil and one extant 
species known from the Late Cretaceous onwards (see Stallwood, 1995, p. 88). The 
single extant species is Clavagella ramosa Dunker, 1882 (p. 172), which was first 
transferred to the genus Stirpulina by Fujita (1929, p. 62). Stirpulina ramosa 
(Dunker, 1882) has been of considerable use in understanding the evolution of tube 
formation in bivalve molluscs (e.g. Savazzi, 1982, 2005; Morton, 2005, 2006b, 
2007). The genus Stirpulina is currently assigned to the family CLAVAGELLIDAE 
d’Orbigny, 1845 (superfamily CLAVAGELLOIDEA d’Orbigny, 1845, Anomalodesmata 
Dall, 1889) (see Morton, 2005, p. 204; Bieler et al. in Bouchet & Rocroi, 2010, 
p:. 132); 

6. The genus Stirpulina has been in widespread and current use since it was first 
established by Stoliczka in 1870. In the past 50 years, at least 30 publications by 17 
different authors using Stirpulina as a valid genus have been located (e.g. Holzl, 1961, 
p. 65; Smith, 1962, p. 168, 1963, p. 15; Keen & Smith, 1969, p. N858; Buccheri, 1970, 
p. 241; B.J. Smith, 1976, p. 195; Maxwell, 1978, p. 29; Savazzi, 1982, p. 293; Morton, 
1984, p. 464; Pojeta & Sohl, 1987, p. 5, 1988, p. 826; Jones & Nicol, 1989; p. 320; 
Darga, 1990, p. 20; Mayoral, 1990, p. 117; Stallwood, 1995, p. 84; Dulai, 1996, p. 71; 
Morton, 2002a, p. 546, 2002b, p. 13; 2003, p. 389, 2004a, p. 37; 2004b, p. 246, 2004c, 
p. 355; 2005, p. 202; 2006a, p. 187, 2006b, p. 233, 2006c, p. 103, 2007, p. 19, 2009, 
p. 252; Savazzi, 2005, p. 180; Morton & Grebneff, 2011, p. 125). This fulfils the 
conditions of Article 23.9.1.2 of the Code (Reversal of Precedence). 

7. Since 1899, just five publications using the genus name Tubolana have been 
located. Two publications considered this name to be valid but taxonomically 
unplaced (Vokes, 1967, p. 341; 1980, p. 214). Two other publications considered this 
name to be valid and a possible senior synonym of Stirpulina but gave preference to 
the name Stirpulina (L.A. Smith, 1962, p. 170; Keen & L.A. Smith, 1969, p. N858). 
The final and most recent use of the name Jubolana was in a reprint of di 
Monterosato’s collected works (Giannuzzi Savelli, 1989, p. 1407), where all instances 
of the name Tubolana (without discussion of the validity of the name) as used by di 
Monterosato were listed. The post-1899 use of Tubolana as a valid generic name in 
the first four publications means that the conditions of Article 23.9.1.1 of the Code 
(Reversal of Precedence) are not met and a ruling by the Commission is needed for 
formal suppression of the name. 

8. The generic name Stirpulina Stoliczka, 1870 has been used as valid in at least 
30 publications in the past 50 years. The generic name Tubolana Bivona Bernardi, 
1832 has been used as valid only four times since 1899. Although the conditions 
of Article 23.9.1 for maintaining current usage are not fulfilled, the conser- 
vation of the name Stirpulina Stoliczka, 1870 would best serve nomenclatural 
stability. 

9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the name 7ubolana Bivona Bernardi, 1832 
for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle 
of Homonymy; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Stirpulina 
Stoliczka, 1870 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Clava- 
gella coronata Deshayes, 1824; 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 259 


(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name coronata 
Deshayes, 1824, as published in the binomen Clavagella coronata (specific 
name of the type species of Stirpulina Stoliczka, 1870); 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the name Tubolana Bivona Bernardi, 1832, as suppressed in (1) above. 


References 


Bieler, R., Carter, J.G. & Coan, E.V. 2010. A classification of bivalve families. Pp. 113-133 in 
Bouchet, P. & Rocroi, J.-P., Nomenclator of bivalve families. Malacologia, 52(2): 1-184. 

Bivona Bernardi, A. 1832. Caratteri di un nuovo genere di conchliglie fossili, estratti dalle 
Collettanee di Storia naturale. Effemeridi Scientifiche e Letterariae per la Sicilia, 1: 55-62. 

Bouchet, P. & Rocroi, J.-P. 2010. Nomenclator of Bivalve families. Malacologia, 52(2): 1-184. 

Buccheri, G. 1970. Una malacofauna calabriana del territorio di Sciacca (Sicilia sud- 
occidentale). Geologica Romana, 9: 239-274. 

Dall, W.H. 1889. On the hinge of pelecypods and its development, with an attempt toward a 
better subdivision of the group. American Journal of Science, (3)38(228): 445-462. 

Darga, R. 1990. The Eisenrichterstein near Hallthurm, Bavaria: An Upper Eocene Carbonate 
Ramp (Northern Calcareous Alps). Facies, 23(1): 17-33. 

Deshayes, G.P. 1824. Description des coquilles fossiles des environs de Paris. Tome 1. 
Conchiferes, pp. 1-178. Deshayes, Jeune, Fréres et Treuttel, Paris. 

Deshayes, G.P. 1830. Encyclopédie méthodique. Histoire naturelle des Vers, vol. 2, pt. 1, vii, 256 
pp. Agasse, Paris. 

Dulai, A. 1996. Anterior fringe fragment of Clavagella (Bivalvia) from the Middle Miocene 
(Badenian) sandy deposits of Szob (Bérzs6ny Mts., Hungary). Fragmenta Mineralogica et 
Palaeontologica, 18: 71-78. 

Dunker, G. 1882. Index Molluscorum Maris Japonici. Novitates conchologicae, Abbildung und 
Beschreibing neuer Conchylien, Supplement 7: i—vii, [1], 1-301, [1]. 

Fujita, T. 1929. [Report on the dredged shells of Tateyama Bay (1)]. Venus, 1(2): 58-65. 

Giannuzzi Savelli, R.G. 1989. Opera Omnia, vol. 4. 1187-1793 pp. Unione Malacologica 
Italiana, Palermo, Italy. 

Holzl, O. 1961. Leitende Molluskenarten aus der marinen und brackischen Molasse Oberbay- 
erns. Paldontologische Zeitschrift, 35(1—2): 62-78. 

Jones, D.S. & Nicol, D. 1989. Eocene clavagellids (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) from Florida: The 
first documented occurrence in the Cenozoic of the Western Hemisphere. Journal of 
Paleontology, 63(3): 320-323. 

Keen, A.M. & Smith, L.A. 1969. Superfamily Clavagellacea. Pp. N857—N859 in Moore, R.C. 
(Ed.), Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Part N. Volume 2. Mollusca 6. Bivalvia, The 
Geological Society of America, Inc. & University of Kansas, Lawrence. 

Maxwell, P.A. 1978. Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on some New Zealand Cenozoic 
Mollusca, with descriptions of new taxa. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 5(1): 15-46. 

Mayoral, E. 1990. Bivalvia: Clavagellacea (Stirpulina pliocenica nov. sp.) del Neégeno Superior 
de la Cuenca del Bajo Guadalquivir. Treballs del Museu de Geologia de Barcelona, 1: 
117-134. 

Monterosato, M. di. 1877. Catalogo dell Conchiglie fossili di Monte Pellegrino e Ficarazzi 
presso Palermo. Bollettino del Reale Comitato Geologico d'Italia, 1-2: 28-41. 

Morton, B. 1984. Adventitious tube construction in Brechites vaginiferus (Bivalvia: Anomal- 
odesmata: Clavagellacea) with an investigation of the juvenile of “Humphreyia strangei”. 
Journal of Zoology, 203(4): 461-484. 

Morton, B. 2002a. Biology and functional morphology of the watering pot shell Brechites 
vaginiferus (Bivalvia: Anomalodesmata: Clavagellidae). Journal of Zoology, 257(4): 
545-562. 

Morton, B. 2002b. The biology and functional morphology of Humphreyia strangei (Bivalvia: 
Anomalodesmata: Clavagellidae): an Australian cemented watering pot shell. Journal of 
Zoology, 258(1): 11-25. 


260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


Morton, B. 2003. The biology and functional morphology of Dianadema gen. nov. multangu- 
laris (Tate, 1887) (Bivalvia: Anomalodesmata: Clavagellidae). Journal of Zoology, 259(4): 
389-401. 

Morton, B. 2004a. The biology and functional morphology of Foegia novaezelandiae (Bivalvia: 
Anomalodesmata: Clavagelloidea) from Western Australia. Malacologia, 46(1): 37-55. 

Morton, B. 2004b. Biology and functional morphology of Kendrickiana gen. nov. veitchi 
(Bivalvia: Anomalodesmata: Clavagelloidea) from southern Australia. Invertebrate 
Biology, 123(3): 244-259. 

Morton, B. 2004c. The biology and functional morphology of Nipponoclava gigantea: clues to 
the evolution of tube dwelling in the Penicillidae (Bivalvia: Anomalodesmata: Clavagel- 
loidea). Journal of Zoology, 264(4): 355-369. 

Morton, B. 2005. Biology and functional morphology of a new species of endolithic Bryopa 
(Bivalvia: Anomalodesmata: Clavagelloidea) from Japan and a comparison with fossil 
species of Stirpulina and other Clavagellidae. Invertebrate Biology, 124(3): 202-219. 

Morton, B. 2006a. The functional morphology of Penicillus philippinensis (Anomalodesmata: 
Clavagelloidea) and the evolution of a unique muscular system in the Bivalvia. Records of 
the Western Australian Museum, 23(2): 175-192. 

Morton, B. 2006b. Structure and formation of the adventitious tube of the Japanese 
watering-pot shell Stirpulina ramosa (Bivalvia, Anomalodesmata, Clavagellidae) and a 
comparison with that of the Penicillidae. Invertebrate Biology, 125(3): 233-249. 

Morton, B. 2006c. A new species and first record of the endobenthic clavagellid Stirpulina 
(Bivalvia: Anomalodesmata) from the late Eocene of southern Western Australia. 
Alcheringa: an Australasian Journal of Palaeontology, 30(1): 103-110. 

Morton, B. 2007. The evolution of the watering pot shells (Bivalvia: Anomalodesmata: 
Clavagellidae and Penicillidae). Records of the Western Australian Museum, 24(1): 19-64. 

Morton, B. 2009. The watering pot shell Dianadema minima (Bivalvia, Anomalodesmata, 
Clavagellidae): re-description and an interpretation of adventitious crypt formation. 
Invertebrate Biology, 128(3): 252-260. 

Morton, B. & Grebneff, A. 2011. A new species and a new record of endobenthic Clavagellidae 
(Bivalvia: Anomalodesmata: Clavagelloidea) from the Oligocene and Miocene of New 
Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 54(1): 125-134. 

d’Orbigny, A. 1844-1858. Paléontologie francaise. Description zoologique et géologique de tous 
les Animaux mollusques et rayonnés fossiles de France. Terrains crétacés, vol. 3, 807 pp. 
Arthus Bertrand, Paris. [Published in parts. Family-group name Clavagellinae first used 
on page 299 (published 1845), see Bouchet & Rocroi, 2010, p. 161.] 

Pojeta, J., Jr. & Sohl, N.F. 1987. Ascaulocardium armatum (Morton, 1833), new genus (Late 
Cretaceous): The ultimate variation on the bivalve paradigm. Paleontological Memoirs, 
24: 1-77. 

Pojeta, J., Jr. & Sohl, N.F. 1988. Eocene clavagellids from Florida. Journal of Paleontology, 
62(5): 826. 

Savazzi, E. 1982. Adaptations to tube dwelling in the Bivalvia. Lethaia, 15(3): 275-297. 

Savazzi, E. 2005. The function and evolution of lateral asymmetry in boring endolithic 
bivalves. Paleontological Research, 9(2): 169-187. 

Smith, B.J. 1976. Revision of the Recent species of the family Clavagellidae (Mollusca: 
Bivalvia). Journal of the Malacological Society of Australia, 3(3-4): 187-207. 

Smith, L.A. 1962. Revision of the Clavagellacea. Veliger, 4(4): 167-174. 

Smith, L.A. 1963. Historical Zoogeographic Study of the Clavagellacea. Veliger, 5(1): 15-19. 

Stallwood, R.B. 1995. A Turonian clavagellid (Bivalvia) from the Ladd Formation of Southern 
California. Journal of Paleontology, 69(1): 84-88. 

Stoliczka, F. 1870. Cretaceous fauna of Southern India, vol. 3. The Pelecypoda, with a review 
of all known Genera of this class, fossil and recent. Palaeontologia Indica, being figures and 
descriptions of the organic remains procured during the progress of the Geological Survey of 
India, (6)3(1-4): xxii, 1-8, 8a, 8B, 86, 9-222. 

Vokes, H.E. 1967. Genera of the Bivalvia: A systematic and bibliographic catalogue. Bulletins 
of American Paleontology, 51(232): [8], 111-394. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 261 


Vokes, H.E. 1980. Genera of the Bivalvia. A Systematic and Bibliographic Catalogue (Revised 
and Updated). xxvii, 307 pp. Paleontological Research Institution, New York. 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 68: 159. 
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 


should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


Case 3541 


METINAE Simon, 1894 (Arachnida, Araneae, TETRAGNATHIDAE): 
proposed emendation of the current spelling to METAINAE to remove 
homonymy with METIDAE Boeck, 1872 (Crustacea, Copepoda) 


Fernando Alvarez-Padilla 


Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México, Facultad de Ciencias, Depto. 
Biologia Comparada, Lab. Acarologia, Ciudad Universitaria, Ciudad de 
Mexico, Del. Coyoacan C.P. 04510 Mexico 

(e-mail: fap@ciencias.unam.mx) 


Gustavo Hormiga 


The George Washington University, Department of Biological Sciences, 
20203 G St. NW Washington D.C., 20050 U.S.A. 
(e-mail: hormiga@gwu.edu) 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 55.3.1 and 29 of the Code, 
is to remove homonymy between the family-group name METINAE Simon, 1894 
currently used in Araneae (TETRAGNATHIDAE) and the crustacean family-group name 
METIDAE Boeck, 1872. It is proposed that the spelling of the spider name (based on the 
generic name Meta C.L. Koch, 1835) be emended to give METAINAE, while leaving the 
crustacean name (based on the generic name Mefris) unaltered. 


Keywords: Arachnida; Araneae; TETRAGNATHIDAE; Crustacea; Copepoda; METIDAE; 
Meta; Metis; Meta menardi; Metis ignea; crustaceans; spiders. 


1. The family group name METEAE was proposed by Simon for a group of orb 
weaving spiders that he defined morphologically as ‘intermediate between Tetrag- 
natha Latreille, 1804 and Nephila Leach, 1815’ (Simon, 1894, p. 726). The type genus 
for this family group name was Meta C.L. Koch, 1835 (pl. 12), with the type species 
Epeira menardi Latreille, 1804. Simon (1894) did not mention the etymology of this 
genus. However, several of Simon’s interpretations of names were later corrected by 
Thorell (1869) who considered Meta to be a Greek proper noun based on the name 
of the first wife of Aegeus, legendary King of Athens (Thorell, 1869, p. 35; Cameron 
in Ubick et al., 2005). Other uses of the family group name Meteae after Simon’s 
(1894) work were: Petrunkevitch’s Systema Araneorum published in 1928. This spider 
catalog ranked METEAE as the subfamily METINAE and included metine spiders within 
the former orb-weaver family ARGIOPIDAE (Petrunkevitch, 1928, p. 141). Roewer’s 
(1942) catalog followed the usage of METINAE, but considered it a subfamily within 
ARANEIDAE. Levi (1980) was the first to diagnose METINAE, revise the North American 
species and discuss its phylogenetic relationships with other araneoids. Platnick 
(1989) noted that the spider family name METINAE is invalid because it was 
preoccupied in the Copepoda. However, the name METINAE has been used by several 
authors in discussions of the taxonomy and phylogeny of these spiders (e.g. Heimer 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 263 


& Nentwig, 1982; Brignoli, 1983; Levi 1986; Coddington, 1990; Hormiga et al., 1995; 
Griswold et al., 1998; Kuntner & Alvarez-Padilla, 2006; Alvarez-Padilla, 2007; 
Alvarez-Padilla et al., 2009). We have recently explained this homonymy problem 
and diagnosed the subfamily using the name METAINAE Simon, 1894 to avoid the 
homonymy (Alvarez-Padilla et al., 2009). 

2. The crustacean family METIDAE was first proposed by Boeck (1872, p. 59) to 
include a group of Copepoda whose type genus is Metis Philippi, 1843 (p. 59), with 
the type species Metis ignea Philippi (p. 61). Homonymy of the two family group 
names arose because even though the generic names have different spellings, the 
names of their type genera have the same stem (Met-). The crustacean name 
METIDAE Boeck, 1872 has priority over METINAE Simon, 1894 (Article 23.1 of the 
Code). Unfortunately Philippi did not give the etymology of Metis (Philippi, 1843, 
p. 59) or specify the language of this word, but the name is probably derived from 
the Greek noun métis, meaning counsel, wisdom, skill or prudence. Its usual 
genitive is metios, so the stem would be meti- and a family name based on it 
METIIDAE, although there is a less used genitive (in lyric compositions), metidos, in 
which the stem is metid- and a family name based on it METIDIDAE. However, the 
original spelling METIDAE Boeck, 1872 seems to be uncontested as the spelling in 
prevailing usage, even if METIIDAE OF METIDIDAE is the grammatically correct spelling. 
Therefore we suggest that the current spelling METIDAE for the crustacean family be 
maintained under Article 29.5 (Maintenance of current spellings of family-group 
names). | 

3. Reversal of precedence under Article 23.9.2 cannot be applied to this senior 
homonym because the name METIDAE Boeck, 1872 has been used more than 25 times 
after 1899 within Crustacea (Sars, 1910; Farran, 1913; Wilson, 1932; Guaita, 1961; 
Vervoort, 1964; Coull, 1977; Por, 1984; Gerber, 1987; Dahms, 1989; Meyer & Bell, 
1989; Fiers, 1992; Damkaer, 1996; Suarez-Morales et al., 2006; Wells, 2007 and 
references therein). Therefore, the case is referred to the Commission under Article 
55.3.1 of the Code. 

4. We propose to emend the spelling of the family-group name METINAE Simon, 
1894 to METAINAE to remove its homonymy with METIDAE Boeck, 1872. 

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary power to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code 

the stem of the generic name Meta C.L. Koch, 1835 is Meta-; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following 

names: 

(a) Meta C.L. Koch, 1835 (gender: feminine), type species Epeira menardi 
Latreille, 1804 by original designation; 

(b) Metis Philippi, 1843 (gender: feminine), type species Metis ignea Philippi, 
1843 by monotypy; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following 

names: 

(a) menardi Latreille, 1804, as published in the binomen Epeira menardi 
(specific name of the type species of Meta C.L. Koch, 1835); 

(b) ignea Philippi, 1843, as published in the binomen Metis ignea (specific 
name of the type species of Metis Philippi, 1843); 


264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following 
names: 
(a) METAINAE Simon, 1894, type genus Meta C.L. Koch, 1835, spelling 
emended by the ruling in (1) above (Arachnida, Araneae); 
(b) METIDAE Boeck, 1872, type genus Metis Philippi, 1843 (Crustacea, Co- 
pepoda); 
(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in 
Zoology the name METINAE Simon, 1894 (Arachnida, Araneae), spelling 
emended to METAINAE, as ruled in (1) above. 


Acknowledgements 


We would like to thank Dr Mark Harvey (Western Australian Museum) for reviewing 
this manuscript, Dr Wojciech Pulawski and Dr Charles Griswold (California 
Academy of Sciences) for their valuable comments on early versions. We also would 
like to thank one of the IZCN Commissioners for kindly providing the etymology of 
Metis and valuable suggestions to this petition. Funding for this research was 
provided by grants from the U.S. National Science Foundation (DEB-0328644 to 
G. Hormiga and G. Giribet). 


References 


Alvarez-Padilla, F. 2007. Systematics of the spider genus Metabus O. P.-Cambridge, 1899 
(Araneoidea: Tetragnathidae) with additions to the tetragnathid fauna of Chile and 
comments on the phylogeny of Tetragnathidae. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 
151: 285-335. 

Alvarez-Padilla, F., Dimitrov, D., Giribet, G. & Hormiga, G. 2009. Phylogenetic relationships 
of the spider family Tetragnathidae (Araneae, Araneoidea) based on morphological and 
DNA sequence data. Cladistics, 29: 109-146. 

Boeck, A. 1872. Nye Slaegter og Arter af Saltvands-Copepoder. Forhandlinger i Videnskabs- 
Selskabet i Christiania, 1872: 35—60. 

Brignoli, P.M. 1983. A catalogue of the Araneso described between 1940 and 1981. 755 pp. 
Manchester University Press, Manchester. 

Cameron, H.D. 2005. An etymological dictionary of North American spider genus names. 
274-330. In: Ubick, D., Paquin, P., Cushing, P.E. Roth, V. (Eds). Spiders of North 
America: an identification manual. American Arachnological Society. 377 pp. 

Coddington, J.A. 1990. Ontogeny and homology in the male palpus of orb-weaving spiders and 
their relatives, with comments on phylogeny (Araneoclada: Araneoidea, Deinopoidea). 
Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 496: 1-52. 

Coull, B.C. 1977. Marine flora and fauna of the northeastern United Sates. Copepoda: 
Harpacticoida. NOAA Technical Report NMFS Circular 399. Pp. 1-48.Washington D.C. 

Dahms, H.U. 1989. First record of a lecithotrophic nauplius in Harpacticoida (Crustacea, 
Copepoda) collected from the Weddell Sea (Antarctica). Polar Biology, 10: 221-224. 

Damkaer, D.M. 1996. Copepod taxonomy: Discovery vs. recognition. Proccedings of the 
Biological Society of Washington, 109: 687-694. 

Farran, G.P. 1913. Marine Entomostraca. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 31: 1-20. 
Fiers, F. 1992. Metis reducta n. sp. and Laubieria tercera n. sp. (Harpacticoida, Metidae) from 
the southern coast of Papua, New-Guinea. Belgian Journal of Zoology, 122: 37-51. 
Gerber, P.A. 1987. Lagoon plankton of Enewetak Atoll. Pp. 203-217 In: The Natural History 

of Enewetak Atoll. Volume 2. Biogeography and Systematics, Devaney, D.M., Reese, E.S., 
Burch, B.L. & Helfrich, P. (Eds.), 348 pp. Office of Scientific & Technical Information US 
Department of Energy. U.S.A. 

Guaita, E. F. 1961. Catalogo de los Copepodos Planctonicos Chilenos. Gayana, 4: 3-59. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 265 


Griswold, C.E., Coddington, J.A., Hormiga, G. & Scharff, N. 1998. Phylogeny of the orb-web 
building spiders (Araneae, Orbiculariae: Deinopoidea, Araneoidea). Zoological Journal of 
the Linnean Society, 123: 1-99. 

Heimer, S. & Nentwig, W. 1982. Thoughts on the phylogeny of the Araneoidea Latreille, 1806 
(Arachnida, Araneae). Zeitschrift fiir Zoologische Systematik Und Evolutionsforschung, 
20: 284-295. 

Hormiga, G., Eberhard, W.G. & Coddington, J.A. 1995. Web-construction behaviour in 
Australian Phonognatha and the phylogeny of nephiline and tetragnathid spiders (Ara- 
neae: Tetragnathidae). Australian Journal of Zoology, 43: 313-364. 

Koch, C.L. 1835. Jn Herrich-Schaffer, G.W. Favnae insectorum Germanicae initia. Arach- 
niden. Heft 128, folio 8-16, 23-24; Heft 129, folio 12-24; Heft 130, folio 13-14; Heft 131, 
folio 1-24; Heft 134, folio 1-24. Regensburg. 

Kuntner, M. & Alvarez-Padilla, F. 2006. Systematics of the Afro-Macaronesian spider genus 
Sancus (Araneae, Tetragnathidae). Journal of Arachnology, 34: 113-125. 

Levi, H.W. 1980. The orb-weaver genus Mecynogea, the subfamily Metinae and the genera 
Pachygnatha, Glenognatha and Azilia of the subfamily Tetragnathinae north of Mexico 
(Araneae: Araneidae). Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 149: 1-74. 

Levi, H.W. 1986. The Neotropical orb-weaver genera Chrysometa and Homalometa (Araneae: 
Tetragnathidae). Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 151: 91-215. 

Meyer, H.A. & Bell, S.S. 1989. Mouth parts of the Marine Harpacticoid Copepod Metis 
holothuriae. Transaction of the American Microscopy Society, 108: 414-418. 

Pesta, O. 1920. Di e Pl anc toncopepoden der Adria. Zoologischen. Jahrbtichern. Abt. f. 
Systematik, 43: 471-660, 

Petrunkevitch, A. 1928. Systema Araneorum. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts 
and Sciences, 29: 1-270. 

Philippi, A. 1843. Fernere Beobachtiingeii iber die Copepoden des Mittelmeeres. Archiv fiir 
Naturgeschichte, 9: 54 — 71. 

Platnick, N.I. 1989. Advances in Spider Taxonomy 1981-1987. A Supplement to Brignoli’s A 
Catalogue of the Araneae described between 1940 and 1981. 673 pp. Manchester University 
Press, Manchester. 

Platnick, N.I. 2010. The World Spider Catalog, Version 11. The American Museum of Natural 
History. Available at http://research.amnh.org/entomology/spiders/catalog (Accessed on 
14 March 2011). 

Por, F.D. 1984. Crustaceana. Canuellidae Lang (Harpacticoida, Polyarthra) and the ancestry 
of the Copepoda in Vervoort, W. (ed.). Studies on Copepoda II. Proceedings of the First 
International Conference on Copepoda. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 24-28 August 
1981. Crustaceana, Supplement, 7: 1-24 

Roewer, C.F. 1942. Katalog der Araneae von 1758 bis 1940 1 Band. 1040 pp. Kommissions- 
Verlag von ‘Natura’, Bremen, Bruxelles. 

Roewer, C.F. 1954. Katalog der Araneae von 1758 bis 1940, bzw. 1954 2 Band, Art. b. 924 pp. 
Rue Vautier, Bruxelles. 

Simon, E. 1894. Historie naturelle des araignées I. 1084 pp. Librairie encyclodédique de Roret, 
Paris. 

Sars, G.O. (1910). Copepoda Harpacticoida. Parts XXIX & XXX. Tachidiidae (concluded), 
Metidae, Balaenophilidae, supplement (part). An Account of the Crustacea of Norway, 
with short descriptions and figures of all the species, vol. 5. Pp. 337-368, pls. 225—230, 
suppl. pls. 1-10. 342 pp. Bergen Museum, Bergen. 

Suarez-Morales, E., Troch, M.D. & Fiers, F. 2006. A checklist of the marine Harpacticoida 
(Copepoda) of the Caribbean Sea. Zootaxa, 1285: 1-19. 

Thorell, T. 1869. On European spiders. Part I. Review of the European genera of spiders, 
preceded by some observations on zoological nomenclature. Nova acta Regi societatis 
scientiarum upsaliensis, 7: 1-108. 

Vervoort, W. 1964. Free-Living Copepoda From Ifaluk Atoll in the Caroline Islands With 
Notes on Related Species. Bulletin of the United States Museum, 263: 1-431. 

Wells, J.B.J. 2007. An annotated checklist and keys to the species of Copepoda Harpacticoida 
(Crustacea). Zootaxa, 1568: 1-872. 


266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


Wilson, C.B. 1932. The Copepods of the Woods Hole Region Massachusetts. Bulletin of the 
United States Museum, 158: 1-635. 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 270. 
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 


should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 267 


Case 3570 


Curculio scirpi Fabricius, 1792 (currently Notaris scirpi; Insecta, 
Coleoptera, CURCULIONOIDEA, ERIRHINIDAE): proposed precedence over 
Curculio rhamni Herbst, 1784 and C. scirpi Rossi, 1790 


Roberto Caldara 


via Lorenteggio 37, 20146 Milano, Italy 
(e-mail: roberto.caldara@gmail.com) 


Herbert Winkelmann 
Attendorner Weg 39 A, 13507 Berlin, Germany 
(e-mail: hyperiniwinkelmann@web.de) 


Miguel A. Alonso-Zarazaga 


Departamento de Biodiversidad y Biologia Evolutiva, Museo Nacional de 
Ciencias Naturales (CSIC), José Gutiérrez Abascal, 2, E-28006 Madrid, 
Spain (e-mail: zarazaga@mncn.csic.es) 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3, 81.2.1 and 81.2.3 of 
the Code, is to conserve the name Curculio scirpi Fabricius, 1792, a common 
Palaearctic weevil species currently belonging to the genus Notaris (CURCULIONOIDEA, 
ERIRHINIDAE) by giving it precedence over the little-used older name C. rhamni Herbst, 
1784 whenever these names are considered to be synonyms, and by suppressing the 
little-used senior homonym C. scirpi Rossi, 1790. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; CURCULIONOIDEA; ERIRHINIDAE; 
Curculio; Notaris; Notaris scirpi; Notaris rhamni; Curculio scirpi; weevil; Palaearctic. 


1. Herbst (1784, p. 78) described a new species of ERIRHINIDAE (formerly CURCULIO- 
NIDAE) from Reppen (now Rzepin in western Poland) as Curculio rhamni. Subse- 
quently (Herbst, 1795, p. 280) he redescribed this species accompanied by a drawing 
and specifying that it was already described previously. This taxon was first 
synonymised with Erirhinus scirpi (Fabricius, 1792) (formerly Curculio, presently 
Notaris) by Gyllenhal (1835, p. 284) without comment. Klima (1934, p. 37) cited C. 
rhamni Herbst, 1784 as a doubtful synonym along with Notaris scirpi and C. rhamni 
sensu Herbst, 1795 as a synonym of Notaris bimaculatus (Fabricius, 1787) (presently 
Tournotaris Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal, 1999). Recently in their checklist of the weevils 
from the Kemerovo Province (southern Siberia) and the Coleoptera from Latvia 
respectively, Krivets & Legalov (2002, p. 820) and Telnov (2004, p. 105) quoted 
Notaris rhamni (Herbst, 1795) as a valid species, the latter placing scirpi (Fabricius, 
1787 [sic] nec Rossi, 1790) in synonymy with rhamni. Telnov (pers. comm.) stated that 
‘reporting Notaris rhamni (Herbst, 1795) in this catalogue was a mistake and does not 
have any nomenclatural background’. 


268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


2. Since the type material of C. rhamni was not traced, recently Caldara & 
Winkelmann (2010) designated a neotype for this taxon following the original 
description and the drawing reported in Herbst’s (1795) redescription and in 
accordance with Article 75 of the Code. They proposed the synonymy of this species 
with Notaris scirpi (Fabricius, 1792) (formerly Curculio). 

3. Rossi (1790, p. 118) described Curculio scirpi based on specimens collected in 
“Etruria” (presently an area of central Italy including Tuscany and part of Umbria 
and Latium). Since then this taxon has never been listed in papers or catalogues 
except for Telnov (2004). No type specimens of Curculio scirpi Rossi are available at 
the Museum fiir Naturkunde der Humboldt-Universitat of Berlin (ex coll. J.C.L. 
Hellwig), where part of Rossi’s collection is housed. However, Rossi’s description 
agrees well with the modern concept of N. scirpi (Fabricius, 1792) (Hoffmann, 1958; 
Dieckmann, 1986; Smreczyfski, 1972). Therefore, following all the qualifying 
conditions of Article 75.3 of the Code, with the express purpose of clarifying the 
taxonomic status of this taxon, clearly differentiated from other closely related 
species by characters reported by Hoffmann (1958), Smreczynski (1972) and 
Dieckmann (1986), we decided to designate a specimen bearing these characters as 
the neotype of C. scirpi Rossi. This is a male specimen labelled as follows: ‘palude di 
Fucecchio, 19-11-967, L. Failla [handwritten] / Ex-coll. Failla [printed] / NEOTYPE, 
Curculio scirpi Rossi, 1790, des. Caldara & Winkelmann 2011 [red card, printed] / 
Notaris scirpi (Fabricius), det. Caldara & Winkelmann 2011 [printed]’. The specimen 
is 5.5 mm long (rostrum excluded), well preserved and set on a white rectangular 
card. It is deposited at the Museum of Natural History of Florence. The neotype 
locality of C. scirpi Rossi (originally ‘Etruria’) is Palude di Fucecchio (Pistoia, 
Tuscany, Italy). The following synonymy is here proposed: Notaris scirpi (Fabricius, 
1792) = Curculio scirpi Rossi, 1790 n. syn. 

4. Notaris scirpi (Fabricius, 1792) (formerly Curculio) is a common weevil species 
which has been cited under this name and this author repeatedly over the past 50 
years (Abbazzi & Maggini, 2009; Abbazzi & Osella, 1992; Abbazzi et al., 1994; 
Alonso-Zarazaga, 2002; Alonso-Zarazaga et al., 2006; Angelini, 1987; 1998; Angelini 
& Montemurro, 1986; Bercio & Folwaczny, 1979; Caldara & O’Brien, 1995; Casalini 
& Colonnelli, 2001; Colonnelli, 2003; Dieckmann, 1986; Endrédi, 1970; Hansen M.., 
1996; Hansen V., 1964; Lohse, 1983; Morris, 2002; Pelletier, 2005, PeSic, 2004; 
Silfverberg, 1979; Smreczynski, 1972; Tempére & Péricart, 1989; Thompson, 2006; 
Wanat & Mocrzycki, 2005). Because of Krivets & Legalov’s citation of Notaris 
rhamni (Herbst) and Telnov’s (2004) citation of Notaris rhamni (Herbst) and N. scirpi 
(Rossi), the junior name scirpi Fabricius cannot be maintained under the Code, 
despite being in prevailing usage according to Article 23.9.1.2 of the Code (1999), as 
the conditions of Article 23.9.1.1 are not met. We also believe that the use of the 
senior primary homonym scirpi Rossi, 1790 would be undesirable and would cause 
nomenclatural confusion. 

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: 

(1) to use its plenary power: 

(a) to give the specific name scirpi Fabricius, 1792, as published in the 
binomen Curculio scirpi, precedence over the name rhamni Herbst, 1784, as 
published in the binomen Curculio rhamni, whenever the two names are 
considered to be synonyms; 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 269 


(b) to suppress the specific name scirpi Rossi, 1790, as published in the 
binomen Curculio scirpi, for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority 
and the Principle of Homonymy; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 

(a) scirpi Fabricius, 1792, as published in the binomen Curculio scirpi, with the 
endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name rhamni Herbst, 
1784, as published in the binomen Curculio rhamni, whenever the two 
names are considered to be synonyms; 

(b) rhamni Herbst, 1784, as published in the binomen Curculio rhamni, with 
the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name scirpi 
Fabricius, 1792, as published in the binomen Curculio scirpi, whenever the 
two names are considered to be synonyms; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 

Zoology the name scirpi Rossi, 1790, as published in the binomen Curculio 

scirpi and as suppressed in (1)(b) above. 


References 


Abbazzi, P. & Maggini, L. 2009. Elenco sistematico-faunistico dei Curculionoidea italiani, 
Scolytidae e Platypodae esclusi (Insecta, Coleoptera). A/drovandia, 5: 29-216. 

Abbazzi, P. & Osella, G. 1992. Elenco sistematico-faunistico degli Anthribidae, Rhinomaceri- 
dae, Attelabidae, Apionidae, Brentidae, Curculionidae Italiani (Insecta, Coleoptera, 
Curculionoidea). I Parte. Redia, 75: 267-414. 

Abbazzi, P., Colonnelli, E., Masutti, L. & Osella, G. 1994. Coleoptera Polyphaga XVI 
(Curculionoidea). Jn Minelli, A., Ruffo, S. & La Posta, S. (Eds.), Checklist delle specie 
della fauna italiana, Fasc. 61. Calderini. 68 pp. Bologna. 

Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A. 2002. Lista preliminar de los Coleoptera Curculionoidea del area 
Ibero-Balear, con descriptidn de Melicius gen. nov. y nuevas citas. Boletin de la Sociedad 
Entomologica Aragonesa, 31: 9-33. 

Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A. & Lyal, C.H.C. 1999. 4 World Catalogue of Families and Genera of 
Curculionoidea (Insecta: Coleoptera) (Excepting Scolytidae and Platypodidae). 315 pp. 
Entomopraxis, S.C.P. Edition, Barcelona. 

Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A., Sanchez-Ruiz, M. & Domingo-Quero, T. 2006. Lista preliminar de los 
Curculionoidea (Coleoptera) de la Comunidad de Madrid (Espafia) Graelsia, 62 (numero 
extraordinario): 43-52. 

Angelini, F. 1987. Coleotterofauna del promontorio del Gargano (Coleoptera). Atti del Museo 
Civico di Storia Naturale di Grosseto, 11112: 5—84. 

Angelini, F. 1998. Coleotterofauna reperita mediante trappola luminosa in due stazioni umide 
della Basilicata (Italia meridionale) (Coleoptera). Quaderni della Stazione Ecologica del 
Civico Museo di Storia Naturale di Ferrara, 11: 7—37. 

Angelini, F. & Montemurro, F. 1986. Coleotterofauna del boscodi Policoro (Matera) (Coleop- 
tera). Biogeographia, Nuova Serie, 10(1984): 545-604. 

Bercio, H. & Folwaczny, B. 1979. Verzeichnis der Kafer Preufens. 369 pp. Parzeller & Co, Fulda. 

Caldara, R. & O’Brien, C.W. 1995. Curculionidae: aquatic weevils of China (Coleoptera). 
Pp. 389-408 in Jach, M.A. & Ji, L. (Eds.), Water Beetles of China. vol I. Zoologisch- 
Botanische Gesellschaft (Section of Entomology) und Wiener Coleopterologenverein, 
Vienna. 

Caldara, R. & Winkelmann, H. 2010. Notes on weevil species described by Herbst (Erirhinidae, 
Coleoptera, Curculionoidea). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 37(1): 99-103. 

Casalini, R. & Colonnelli, E. 2001. I Curculionoidei della tenuta presidenziale di Castelporzi- 
ano (Coleoptera, Curculionoidea). Bollettino dell’Associazione Romana di Entomologia, 
56: 331-352. 

Colonnelli, E. 2003. A revised checklist of Italian Curculionoideae (Coleoptera). Zootaxa, 337: 
1-142. 


270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


Dieckmann, L. 1986. Beitrage zur Insektenfauna der DDR: Coleoptera-Curculionidae 
(Erirhinae [sic]). Beitrdge zur Entomologie, 36: 119-181. 

Endrédi, S. 1970. Fundortsangaben iiber die Riisselkafer (Col. Curculionidae) des Karpaten- 
beckens. V. Folia Entomologica Hungarica (series nova), 23: 349-400. 

Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa Insectorum, sistens corum species nuper detectas: adjectis 
characteribus genericis, differentiis specificis, emendationibus, observationibus, vol. 1. xx, 
348 pp. Christ. Gottl. Proft., Hafnie. 

Fabricius, J.C. 1792. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta. Secundum classes, ordines, 
genera, species adjectis synonimis, locis, observationibus, descriptionibus, vol. 1(2). 538 pp. 
C.G. Proft, Hafniae. 

Gyllenhal, L. 1835. In Schoenherr, C.J., Genera et species curculionidum, cum synonymia hujus 
familiae. Species novae aut hactenus minus cognitae, descriptionibus a Dom. Leonardo Gyllenhal, 
C. H. Boheman, et entomologis aliis illustratae, vol. 3(1). 505 pp. [1836]. Roret, Paris. 

Hansen, M. 1996. Katalog over Danmarks biller (Catalogue of the Coleoptera of Denmark). 
Entomologiske Meddelelser, 64:1—231. 

Hansen, V. 1964. Fortegnelse over Danmarks biller (Coleoptera). Entomologiske Meddelelser, 
33: 1-507. 

Herbst, J.F.W. 1784. Kritisches Verzeichniss meiner Insektensammlung. [Cont.]. Archiv der 
Insectengeschichte, 5(1): 73-128, pls. 25-28 (suppl.). 

Herbst, J.F.W. 1795. Natursystem aller bekannten in- und ausldndischen Insekten, als eine 
Fortsetzung der von Buffonschen Naturgeschichte. Fortgesetzt von Johann Friedrich 
Wilhelm Herbst. Der Kdfer, vol. 6. 520, XXIV pp. Berlin, J. Pauli. 

Hoffmann, A. 1958. Coléoptéres Curculionides (Troisiéme partie). Faune de France, vol. 62. 
Pp. 1208-1839. Lechevalier, Paris. 

Klima, A. 1934. Coleopterorum Catalogus auspiciis et auxilio W. Junk editus a S. Schenkling. 
Pars 140. Curculionidae: Erirrhininae. 167 pp. Junk, ’s-Gravenhage. 

Krivets, S.A. & Legalov, A.A. 2002. Obzor zukov nadsem. Curculionoidea (Coleoptera) fauny 
Kemerovskoj oblasti. Entomologischeskoe Obozrenie, 81(2): 817-833. 

Lohse, G.A. 1983. Notarinae (Erirhinae [sic]). Pp. 59-78 in Freude, H., Harde, K.W. & Lohse, 
G.A. (Eds.), Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, Band 11. 324 pp. Krefeld, Goecke & Evers. 

Morris, M.G. 2002. True Weevils (Part I): Family Curculionidae, subfamilies Raymondionymi- 
nae to Smicronychinae, vol. 5, part 17b. 149 pp. The Royal Entomological Society of 
London, London. 

Pelletier, J. 2005. Catalogue de Curculionoidea de France (Coleoptera). Biocosme Mésogéen, 
Nice, 21 [2004]: 75-147. 

PeSi¢é, S. 2004. Weevils fauna (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea) of Gruza Reservoir, Central 
Serbia. Kragujevac Journal of Science, 26: 115-130. 

Rossi, P. 1790. Fauna Etrusca sistens insecta quae in povinciis Florentina et Pisana praesertim 
collegit Petrus Rossius. Tomus secundus. 348 pp, Liburni, Masi. 

Silfverberg, H. 1979. Enumeratio Coleopterorum Fennoscandiae et Daniae. 79 pp. Elsingfors 
Entomologiska Bytesforening, Helsinki. 

Smreczynski, S. 1972. Ryikowce — Curculionidae: Podrozina Curculioninae,vol. 77 (XIX, 98d). 
195 pp. Klucze do Oznaczania Owadow Polski, Warszawa. 

Telnov, D. 2004. Compendium of Latvian Coleoptera. Check-list of Latvian beetles (Insecta 
Coleoptera). 115 pp. Entomological Society of Latvia, Riga. 

Tempére, G. & Péricart, J. 1989. Coléoptéres Curculionides. Quatriéme partie: complements. 
In: Faune de France, vol. 74. 534 pp. Lechevalier, Paris. 

Thompson, R.T. 2006. A revision of the weevil genus Procas Stephens (Coleoptera: Curculio- 
noidea: Erirhinidae). Zootaxa, 1234: 1-63. 

Wanat, M. & Moerzycki, T. 2005. A new checklist of the weevils of Poland (Coleoptera: 
Curculionoidea). Genus, 16: 69-117. 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 68: 160. 


Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 Dal 


Case 3571 


Crotalinus catenatus Rafinesque, 1818 (currently Sistrurus catenatus) 
and Crotalus tergeminus Say in James, 1822 (currently Sistrurus 
tergeminus; Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation of usage by 
designation of neotypes for both species 


Brian J. Crother 


Department of Biology, Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, LA 
70402, U.S.A. (e-mail: bcrother@selu.edu) 


Jay M. Savage 


Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, 
U.S.A. (e-mail: savy1@cox.net) 


Andrew T. Holycross 


Mesa Community College, Red Mountain Campus, Mesa, AZ, 85207 U.S.A. 
& School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, 
U.S.A. (e-mail: andrewholycross@gmail.com) 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 78.1, 78.2.3 and 81 of the 
Code, is to conserve the long and continuing usage of the specific name Crotalinus 
catenatus Rafinesque, 1818 (currently Sistrurus catenatus) for a species of pygmy 
rattlesnake by designation of a neotype. In addition, in order to will conserve the 
nearly equally long and continuous usage of the name Crotalus tergeminus Say in 
James, 1822 (currently Sistrurus tergeminus or Sistrurus catenatus tergeminus) for 
another pygmy rattlesnake, the Commission is asked to designate a neotype for this 
nominal species also. Newly found evidence indicates that the name Crotalinus 
catenatus was based on a specimen of C. tergeminus, and to conserve the names of 
both nominal taxa designation of neotypes for each is required. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Serpentes; Sistrurus; Sistrurus catena- 
tus; Sistrurus tergeminus; rattlesnakes; North America. 


1. Rafinesque (1818, p. 41) briefly described a new species of rattlesnake as 
Crotalinus catenatus from ‘the prairies of the Upper Missouri’ in the Louisiana 
Purchase of the United States. The name was based on a single specimen collected by 
John Bradbury on the Wilson P. Hunt Expedition to the Pacific Coast. This name has 
been used continuously since 1895 in the combination Sistrurus catenatus for a 
species of pygmy rattlesnake. In addition, the name has been used from 1936 to date 
for the subspecies Sistrurus catenatus catenatus, which ranges east of the Mississippi 
River (Kubatko et al., 2011, p. 3). 

2. Say in James (1822, p. 499) subsequently described Crotalus tergeminus based on 
two pygmy rattlesnakes collected from an indefinite locality during the Long 


D2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


Expedition to the Rocky Mountains in the western United States. This name has 
been continuously used in the combination Sistrurus tergeminus or S. catenatus 
tergeminus since Garman (‘1883’, 1884, pp. 118, 176) for a taxon found west of the 
Mississippi River (Kubatko et al., p. 3). The James account is often cited as appearing 
in 1823 but Woodman (2010, p. 28) has demonstrated that it was offered for sale in 
late December, 1822. 

3. Recently, Holycross et al. (2008, p. 422) presented evidence from Bradbury’s 
(1817, p. 70) account of his travels that the holotype of Crotalinus catenatus was 
collected on April 25, 1811, not on the prairies of the Upper Missouri but on the 
floodplain of the Missouri River between the mouth of the Platte River and 
modern-day Nebraska City, Nebraska, U.S.A. In fact there was a confusion of 
locality data for this snake and another (Crotalinus viridis Rafinesque, 1811) collected 
by Bradbury (1817, p. 147) and described from a single specimen that was stated by 
Rafinesque (1811, p. 41) to have been from the ‘Upper Missouri.’ Holycross et al. 
(2008, p. 422) provided evidence that the second snake was actually collected in what 
is modern-day North Dakota. These authors further demonstrated that the type 
locality of what is called Crotalinus catenatus is within the range of Sistrurus 
catenatus tergeminus and not that of the form usually called S. c. catenatus. Under the 
Principle of Priority (Article 23 of the Code), this makes Crotalinus catenatus a name 
that cannot be applied to the eastern taxon because it is a senior synonym of Crotalus 
tergeminus. While there can be no question regarding the identity of the holotype and 
the type locality of Crotalinus catenatus, that specimen is no longer extant (Holycross, 
2008, p. 422). 

4. The situation is complicated by the lack of agreement concerning the provenance 
of the syntypes of Crotalus tergeminus. It has been variously cited as indefinite 
(Minton, 1983, p. 1; Gloyd, 1955, p. 92); between the Mississippi River and the 
Rocky Mountains (Klauber, 1956, p. 50; McDiarmid et al. 1999, p. 325; Campbell 
and Lamar, 2004, p. 609); between Plateville, Weld County, and just south of 
Brighton, Adams County, northeastern Colorado [northeast of present day Denver] 
(Dundee, ‘1996’, 1997, p. 81); or possibly along the Boyer River, in Harrison County, 
Iowa (Dundee, ‘1996’, 1997, p. 8). To further complicate matters, there have been two 
arbitrary restrictions of the type locality, by Smith and Taylor (1950, p. 358) to 
Winfield, Cowley County, Kansas and by Schmidt (1953, p. 226) to the headwaters 
of the Arkansas River. The syntypes of Crotalus tergeminus no longer exist. They 
appear to have been part of the Charles Willson Peale Museum (the Philadelphia 
Museum) collection, which was sold to P.T. Barnum in 1849. They were almost 
certainly incinerated in the 1851 fire that destroyed Barnum’s Museum (Stroud, 1992, 
1, 26) 

5. If the name catenatus were to be applied to the western population the first 
available name for the eastern taxon is Crotalus messasaugus Kirtland, 1838, no type 
locality stated but certainly from the state of Ohio where Kirtland resided. Adler 
(1963) suggested that a National Museum of Natural History, U.S.A. specimen 
(USNM 526) collected from Mahoning County, Ohio by Kirtland might be the 
holotype of this taxon. The name messasaugus has not been used as a valid name in 
any publication post-1899 and its use would upset stability by replacing Sisturus 
catenatus. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 arS 


6. Kubatko et al. (2011, p. 13), apparently unfamiliar with the paper by Holycross 
et al. (2008), suggested on the basis of a phylogenetic analysis that Sistrurus catenatus 
and Sistrurus tergeminus be recognized as separate species. 

7. Inasmuch as the names Sistrurus catenatus or S. c. catenatus and Sistrurus 
tergeminus or S. c. tergeminus have appeared in approximately 1400 works by at least 
250 authors since 1895 (Zoological Record 1895-2007), universality and stability 
seem best served through action of the Commission to use its plenary power (Article 
81 of the Code) to preserve prevailing usage by designating neotypes of known 
provenance for the two taxa in question. The standard procedures of the Code 
(Article 75) for neotype designation cannot be applied in this case because of the 
constraint that any specimen selected to bear the name Crotalinus catenatus should 
come from or near the original type locality (Article 75.3.6), which in that event 
would lie within the geographic range of the taxon currently recognized as Sistrurus 
catenatus tergeminus. In the case of Crotalus tergeminus it is not possible to ascertain 
which of the several options might be the type locality. Therefore, it seems logical to 
select a neotype from a definite locality near the route of the Long Expedition’s 
return to the east from the Rocky Mountains down the course of the Arkansas River 
where Sistrurus catenatus tergeminus is definitely known to occur. The latter action 
could be accomplished in a separate publication as it does not require the action of 
the Commission. However, under Article 78.2.3 of the Code, the Commission is 
empowered to apply the provisions of the Code and issue an Opinion on any question 
of zoological nomenclature, and we believe it would be most parsimonious for the 
Commission to select neotypes for the two involved taxa at the same time. 

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary power to designate specimen USNM 526 at the National 
Museum of Natural History, U.S.A. from Poland, Mahoning County, Ohio, 
U.S.A. as the neotype of Crotalinus catenatus Rafinesque, 1816; 

(2) to use its specific powers to designate specimen USNM 86472 at the National 
Museum of Natural History, U.S.A., from Winfield, Cowley, Kansas, U.S.A. 
as the neotype of Crotalus tergeminus Say in James, 1822; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name catenatus 
as published in the binomen Crotalinus catenatus Rafinesque, 1811, and as 
defined by the neotype designated in (1)(a) above; 

(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name tergeminus 
as published in the binomen Crotalus tergeminus Say in James, 1822 and as 
defined by the neotype designated in (1)(b) above. 


References 


Adler, K.K. 1963. The type locality of Crotalus messasaugus Kirtland. Journal of the Ohio 
Herpetological Society, 4(1—2): 55—57. 

Bradbury, J. 1817. Travels in the interior of America, in the years 1809, 1810, and 1811; 
including a description of upper Louisiana together with the states of Ohio, Kentucky, 
Indiana, and Tennessee, with the Illinois and western territories and containing remarks and 
observations useful to persons emigrating to those countries. xii, 364 pp. Sherwood, Neely 
& Jones, London. 

Campbell, J.A. & Lamar, W.W. 2004. The venomous reptiles of the Western Hemisphere, vol. 
2. xiv, 477-870 pp. [28], 614 pls. Comstock Pub. Associates, Ithaca [N.Y.]. 


274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


Dundee, H.A. ‘1996’, 1997. Some reallocations of type localities of reptiles and amphibians 
described from the Major Stephen H. Long expedition to the Rocky Mountains, with 
comments on some of the statements made in the account written by Edwin James. Tulane 
Studies in Zoology and Botany, 30(2): 75-89. 

Garman, S. ‘1883’, 1884. The reptiles and batrachians of North America. Memoirs of the 
Museum of Comparative Zoology, 8(3): 1-185. 

Gloyd, H.K. 1955. A review of the massasaugas, Sistrurus catenatus, of the southwestern 
United States. Bulletin of the Chicago Academy of Sciences, 10(6): 83-98. 

Holycross, A.T., Anton, T.G. Douglas, M.E. & Frost, D.R. 2008. The type localities of Sistrurus 
catenatus and Crotalus viridis (Serpentes: Viperidae), with the unraveling of a most 
unfortunate tangle of names. Copeia, 2008(2): 421-424. 

James, E. (compiler) 1822. Account of an expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky Mountains, 
performed in the years 1819 and ‘20, by order of the Hon. J. C. Calhoun, Sec’y of War: 
under the command of Major Stephen H. Long. From the notes of Major Long, Mr. T. Say, 
and other gentlemen of the exploring party. vol. 1. [ii], 502 pp. H.C. Carey & I. Lea, 
Philadelphia. 

Klauber, L.M. 1956. Rattlesnakes: Their habits, life histories, and influence on mankind, vol. 1. 
xxix, 708 pp. University of California Press, Berkeley. 

Kirtland, J.P. 1838. Report on the zoology of Ohio. Pp. 159-200 in Second Annual Report on 
the Geological Survey of the state of Ohio. Columbus, Ohio. 

Kubatko, L.S., Gibbs, H.L. & Bloomquist, E.W. 2011. Inferring species-level phylogenies and 
taxonomic distinctiveness using multilocus data in Sistrurus rattlesnakes. Systematic 
Biology, 60(4): 393-409. 

McDiarmid, R.W., Campbell, J.A. & Toure, T.A. 1999. Snakes species of the world: A 
taxonomic and geographic reference. xi, 511 pp. Herpetologists’ League, Washington, D.C. 

Minton, S.A. 1983. Sistrurus catenatus (Rafinesque). Massasauga. Catalogue of American 
Amphibians and Reptiles, 332.1—332.2. 

Rafinesque, C.S. 1818. Farther account of discoveries in natural history, in the western states. 
American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review, 4: 39-42. 

Schmidt, K.P. 1953.4 check list of North American amphibians and reptiles. 280 pp. University 
of Chicago Press, Chicago. 

Smith, H.M. & Taylor, E.H. 1950. Type localities of Mexican reptiles and amphibians. 
University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 33 (8): 313-380 

Stroud, P.T. 1992. Thomas Say: New World naturalist. xv, 340 pp. 9 pls. University of 
Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. 

Woodman, N. 2010. History and dating of the publication of the Philadelphia (1822) and 
London (1823) editions of the Edwin James’s Account of an expedition from Pittsburgh to 
the Rocky Mountains. Archives of Natural History, 37(1): 28-38. 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 68: 160. 
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 


should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 275 


Case 3563 


Pachylemur Lamberton, 1948 (Primates, LEMURIDAE): proposed 
conservation of the generic name 


Jelle Zijlstra 


Rijnzichtweg 153, 2342 AZ Oegstgeest, The Netherlands 
(e-mail: jelle.zijlstra@college.harvard.edu) 


Colin Groves 


School of Archaeology & Anthropology, Building 14, Australian National 
University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia 
(e-mail: Colin.Groves@anu.edu.au) 


Alex Dunkel 


7305 Calibre Park Dr. #102, Durham, NC, U.S.A. 
(e-mail: visionholder@gmail.com) 


Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3, 81.1 and 81.2.3 of the 
Code, is to conserve the name Pachylemur Lamberton, 1948 (Primates, LEMURIDAE), 
a genus of subfossil Malagasy lemurs, by suppressing the senior subjective synonym 
Palaeochirogalus Grandidier, 1899 and by designating a type species for the genus 
Pachylemur Lamberton. Palaeochirogalus Grandidier has never seen any substantial 
usage whereas Pachylemur Lamberton, 1948 is in universal use; however, Pachylemur 
Lamberton, 1948 is unavailable because no type species was designated in the original 
publication. Filhol (1874) previously used the name Pachylemur for a ‘groupe’ of 
Paleogene primates; we conclude that this name, under either Filhol’s or Palmer’s 
(1904) authorship and, in either case, ambiguous as regards availability should be 
formally suppressed at the genus-group level to prevent confusion. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; LEMURIDAE; Palaeochirogalus; Pachylemur; 
Pachylemur insignis; lemur; Madagascar. 


1. Filhol (1874, p. 18) introduced the name Pachylemur for a group of ancient 
primate-like mammals: “Ce groupe, je proposerai de le désigner sous le nom de 
Pachylemur, et j’y placerai le Paleolemur Bettillei, ’ Adapis, ’ Aphelotherium, animal 
dont je viens de donner la description et les divers Lémuriens signalés jusqu’ici en 
Amerique’. He called Pachylemur a ‘groupe’ (group) and ‘type zoologique’ (zoologi- 
cal type) and explicitly included genera (‘genres’) within the ‘groupe’ (also Filhol, 
1874, p. 18; outside the passage quoted above). Thus he apparently did not intend 
Pachylemur as a generic name; the possibility remains, however, that it could be 
construed as a generic name proposed for a series of taxa at subgeneric level. If 
Pachylemur Filhol, 1874 is construed as a family-group name, it is unavailable in the 
absence of an available type genus and because it is not a noun in the nominative 
plural (Article 11.7.1.1 of the Code). 


276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


2. Miall (1875, p. 267), in a Geological Record summary of Filhol’s paper, wrote 
that Filhol had ‘ [p]ropose[d] a new group, Pachylemuride’. Under Article 11.7.1.1 of 
the Code, the name PACHYLEMURIDAE Miall, 1875 is apparently unavailable because 
it was not based on an available generic name and the type genus was not ‘a name 
then used as valid in the new family-group taxon’. However, although Miall (1875) 
clearly considered it to have been proposed for a taxon in the family-group, if 
Pachylemur Filhol, 1874 were to be regarded as an available generic name, then under 
Article 11.7.1.1 of the Code, the name PACHYLEMURIDAE Miall, 1875 may also be 
available. Although this family name is not in current use under any authorship, its 
ambiguous status may at some time become destabilizing. 

3. Gervais (1876, p. 36) transferred the species Adapis magnus Filhol, 1874 (p. 18) 
to a new genus. He considered using the name Pachylemur Filhol for this genus, 
but rejected it and proposed the new name Leptadapis instead. Under Article 
11.5, Pachylemur Gervais, 1876 is unavailable because it was not used as a valid 
name. 

4. Palmer (1904, p. 494), in his Index generum mammalium, listed ‘Pachylemur 
Gervais, 1876’, and wrote that Filhol (1874) had used Pachylemur as a family. On 
p. 890, he listed the type of Pachylemur as Adapis magnus Filhol, but provided a 
cross-reference to Leptadapis. As Palmer (1904, p. 10) indicated, his work lists 
both synonyms and valid names without distinguishing them, so the presence of 
Pachylemur in his index does not constitute evidence that he used the name as valid. 
Palmer (1904, p. 785) wrote that he had included cross-references with at least some 
synonyms listed in Part HI of his work; thus, the cross-reference to Leptadapis on 
p. 890 (in Part HI) further suggests that he did not use Pachylemur as valid. If 
not, Pachylemur Palmer, 1904 is unavailable under Article 11.5 of the Code; however, 
the evidence is ambiguous, and a ruling by the Commission on its unavailability 
is desired. Palmer (1904, pp. 760, 890) also listed the family-group name 
PACHYLEMURIDAE, but if its type genus Pachylemur was not used as valid, this family 
name is unavailable under Article 11.7.1.1 of the Code. 

5. Some other authors, mainly in the 19th and early 20th centuries (e.g. Flower, 
1876 and various reprints of that paper; Claus, 1883), have mentioned Pachylemur 
Filhol or one of its derivatives, but we know of none that could be construed to have 
made the name available. 

6. Grandidier (1899, p. 345) named a new genus and species of subfossil lemur as 
‘Paleochirogalus Jully? (here corrected to Palaeochirogalus jullyi following Articles 
5.1 and 32.5.2.5 of the Code). Some subsequent authors used the genus name as valid 
(e.g. Lorenz von Liburnau, 1901), and Smith (1903, pp. 324, 336, 508) recombined it 
as Lemur jullyi. Grandidier (1905, p. 78) then synonymised his Palaeochirogalus jullyi 
with Lemur insignis Filhol, 1895. As far as we are aware, Palaeochirogalus has not 
been used as a valid name in the taxonomic literature since 1905. In the meantime, 
Standing (1904, p. 306) had named a new species, Lemur jullyi, without mentioning 
Grandidier’s species of the same name. 

7. Lamberton (1948, p. 7) proposed Pachylemur as a new subgeneric name for the 
extinct species Lemur insignis, L. majori Standing, 1908 and L. jullyi, without 
mentioning either Pachylemur Filhol or Palaeochirogalus. He did not specify whether 
his ‘Lemur jully? was based on Palaeochirogalus jullyi Grandidier or Lemur jullyi 
Standing. Lamberton did not designate a type species, and the name is therefore 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 277 


unavailable under Article 13.3 of the Code; nevertheless, many subsequent authors 
have used it (see below). Although it was originally proposed as a subgenus and 
recognized as such until the 1970s, most authors have recognized Pachylemur 
Lamberton as a valid genus since Tardieu & Jouffroy (1979). Tattersall (1982, 
pp. 240-241) discussed the nomenclature of the two species of Pachylemur: a smaller 
species from southern lowland Madagascar, Lemur insignis Filhol, 1895, and a larger 
species from the Central Highlands, known as Lemur jullyi Standing, 1904 (by then 
including Lemur majori Standing, 1908). He argued that Palaeochirogalus jullyi 
Grandidier (which had previously been seen as a synonym of L. insignis) was in fact 
probably conspecific with Lemur jullyi Standing, which it also preoccupies. There- 
fore, he attributed Lemur jullyi to Grandidier (1899) instead. Most workers since then 
have also recognized two species, P. insignis (Filhol, 1895) and P. jullyi (Grandidier, 
1899), although some have expressed doubts that the two are specifically distinct 
(reviewed by Godfrey & Jungers, 2002; Godfrey et al., 2010). 

8. The name Pachylemur Lamberton, 1948, is now in universal usage in the 
scientific literature about lemurs for Lemur insignis Filhol, 1895 and related species 
(e.g. Godfrey et al., 1990; Jungers et al., 1991; Simons et al., 1995; Jungers et al., 1995; 
Godfrey et al., 1995; Shoshani et al., 1996; Godfrey & Jungers, 2002; Burney et al., 
2004; Perez et al., 2005; Shapiro et al., 2005; Godfrey & Irwin, 2007; Burney et al., 
2008; Orlando et al., 2008; Mittermeier et al., 2008; Gommery et al., 2009; Polk 
et al., 2009; Turvey, 2009; Godfrey et al., 2010; Virah-Sawmy et al., 2010; Crowley 
et al., 2011). Unlike some other extinct and extant lemur genera, Pachylemur lacks a 
well-established common name. If the name were to be replaced because it is predated 
by Palaeochirogalus, or preoccupied by one of the older uses of Pachylemur, or 
simply unavailable, it would cause considerable confusion and instability. The name 
Palaeochirogalus would be an especially unfortunate replacement for Pachylemur, 
since it is based on the generic name of the dwarf lemurs, Cheirogaleus Geoffroy, 
1812; this name was frequently spelled Chirogalus in the 19th century and Grandidier 
(1899) himself used the French vernacular form ‘Chirogales’. Pachylemur is no longer 
considered to be closely related to the dwarf lemurs, which are now placed in a 
different family. The two most pressing threats to prevailing usage are the subjec- 
tive senior synonym Palaeochirogalus Grandidier, 1899 and the unavailability of 
Pachylemur Lamberton, 1948. Since Pachylemur of Filhol, 1874 could perhaps be 
construed as having been proposed at genus-group level, it should be suppressed. 
Pachylemur of Gervais and family-group names based on it are clearly not available, 
so we do not request action from the Commission concerning these names. 
Pachylemur Palmer may be interpreted as only questionably unavailable; hence its 
suppression is requested. By suppressing both Pachylemur Filhol, 1874 and Pachy- 
lemur Palmer, 1904 at the genus level, the family-level names PACHYLEMURIDAE Miall, 
1875 and PACHYLEMURIDAE Palmer, 1904, even if either is regarded as available, will 
become invalid under Article 39 of the Code. We propose that prevailing usage of the 
generic name be maintained by retroactively making the name Pachylemur Lamber- 
ton, 1948 available, and suppressing Palaeochirogalus Gandidier. No type species of 
Pachylemur Lamberton, 1948 has apparently ever been designated; we request that 
the Commission designate Lemur insignis Filhol, 1895 as the type species, as it was 
the first species of the genus to be described and the only one to be recognized as valid 
by all authors (e.g. Tattersall, 1973). 


278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 

asked: 

(1) to use its plenary power: 

(a) to suppress the following generic names for the purposes of both the 
Principle of Priority and Principle of Homonymy; 

(i)  Pachylemur Filhol, 1874; 
(ii) Pachylemur Palmer, 1904; 

(b) to suppress the generic name Palaeochirogalus Grandidier, 1899 for the 
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy; 

(c) to rule that the name Pachylemur Lamberton, 1948 is available from its 
original publication; 

(d) to set aside all previous type species fixations for Pachylemur Lamberton, 
1948 and designate Lemur insignis Filhol, 1895 as the type species; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 
Pachylemur Lamberton, 1948, type species Lemur insignis Filhol, 1895, as ruled 
in (1)(c) and (1)(d) above; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name insignis 
Filhol, 1895, as published in the binomen Lemur insignis, specific name of the 
type species of Pachylemur Lamberton, 1948, as ruled in (1)(d) above. 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the following names: 

(a) Pachylemur Filhol, 1874, as suppressed in (1)(a)(i) above; 

(b) Pachylemur Palmer, 1904, as suppressed in (1)(a)(i1) above; 

(c) Palaeochirogalus Grandidier, 1899, as suppressed in (1)(b) above. 


References 


Burney, D.A., Burney, L.P., Godfrey, L.R., Jungers, W.L., Goodman, S.M., Wright, H.T. & 
Jull, A.J.T. 2004. A chronology for late prehistoric Madagascar. Journal of Human 
Evolution, 47: 25-63. 

Burney, D.A., Vasey, N., Godfrey, L.R., Ramilisonina, Jungers, W.L., Ramarolahy, M. & 
Raharivony, L. 2008. New findings at Andrahomana cave, southeastern Madagascar. 
Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, 70: 13-24. 

Claus, C. 1883. Lehrbuch der Zoologie. 857 pp. N. G. Elwert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 
Marburg & Leipzig. 

Crowley, B.E., Godfrey, L.R. & Irwin, M.T. 2011. A glance to the past: subfossils, stable 
isotopes, seed dispersal, and lemur species loss in Southern Madagascar. American Journal 
of Primatology, 73: 25-37. 

Filhol, H. 1874. Nouvelles observations sur les mammiféres des gisements de phosphates de 
chaux (Lémuriens et Pachylémuriens). Annales des Sciences Géologiques, 5: 1-36. 

Filhol, H. 1895. Observations concernant les Mammiféres contemporains des Apyornis a 
Madagascar. Bulletin du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 1: 12-14. 

Flower, W.H. 1876. Extinct Lemurina. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (14)17: 
323-328. 

Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, E. 1812. Note sur trois dessins de Commercon, représentant des 
quadrumanes d’un genre inconnu. Annales du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 
Paris, 19: 171-175. 

Gervais, P. 1876. Zoologie et paléontologie générales. Deuxiéme série. 72 pp. Arthus Bertrand, 
Libraire-Editeur, Libraire de la Société de Géographie, Paris. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 279 


Godfrey, L.R. & Irwin, M.T. 2007. The evolution of extinction risk: past and present 
anthropogenic impacts on the primate communities of Madagascar. Folia Primatologica, 
78: 405-419. 

Godfrey, L.R. & Jungers, W.L. 2002. Quaternary fossil lemurs. Jn Hartwig, W.C. (Ed.), The 
primate fossil record. 530 pp. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. 

Godfrey, L.R., Jungers, W.L. & Burney, D.A. 2010. Subfossil lemurs of Madagascar. In 
Werdelin, L.& Sanders, W.J. (Eds.), Cenozoic mammals of Africa. 986 pp. University of 
California Press, Berkeley, California. 

Godfrey, L.R., Simons, E.L., Chatrath, P.J. & Rakotosamimanana, B. 1990. A new fossil lemur 
(Babakotia, Primates) from northern Madagascar. Comptes Rendus de I’ Académie des 
Sciences, (2)310: 81-87. 

Godfrey, L.R., Sutherland, M.R., Paine, R.R., Williams, F.L., Boy, D.S. & Vuillaume- 
Randriamanantena, M. 1995. Limb joint surface areas and their ratios in Malagasy lemurs 
and other mammals. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 97: 11-36. 

Gommery, D., Ramanivosoa, B., Tombomiadana-Raveloson, S., Randrianantenaina, H. & 
Kerloc’h, P. 2009. Une nouvelle espéce de Iémurien géant subfossile du Nord-Ouest de 
Madagascar (Palaeopropithecus kelyus, Primates). Comptes Rendus Palevol, 8: 47 1-480. 

Grandidier, G. 1899. Description d’ossements de Lémuriens disparus. Bulletin du Muséum 
National d’ Histoire Naturelle, 5: 344-348. 

Grandidier, G. 1905. Recherches sur les lémuriens disparus et en particulier sur ceux qui 
vivaient 4 Madagascar. Nouvelles Archives du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, (4)7: 1-142. 

Jungers, W.L., Godfrey, L.R., Simons, E.L. & Chatrath, P.S. 1995. Subfossil Indri indri 
from the Ankarana Massif of northern Madagascar. American Journal of Physical 
Anthropology, 97: 357-366. 

Jungers, W.L., Godfrey, L.R., Simons, E.L., Chatrath, P.S. & Rakotosamimanana, B. 1991. 
Phylogenetic and functional affinities of Babakotia (Primates), a fossil lemur from 
northern Madagascar. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 88: 9082-9086. 

Lamberton, C. 1948. Contribution a la connaissance de la faune subfossile de Madagascar: 
Note XVII. Les Pachylemurs. Bulletin de ! Académie Malgache, (n.s.)27: 7-22. 

Lorenz von Liburnau, L. 1901. Uber einige Reste ausgestorbener Primaten von Madagaskar. 
Denkschriften der  Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, _Mathematisch- 
Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse, 70: 1-15. 

Miall, L.C. 1875. [Review of] Filhol, M. H. Nouvelles observations sur les Mammifeéres des 
gisements de phosphates de chaux (Lémuriens et Pachylémuriens). [Mammals from the 
phosphate-of-lime deposits.] Ann. Sci. Geol. t. v. art. 4, pp. 1-36, plates 7, 8. Jn Whitaker, 
W. (Ed.), The geological record for 1874, an account of works on geology, mineralogy, and 
palaeontology published during the year. 397 pp. Taylor and Francis, London. 

Mittermeier, R.A., Ganzhorn, J.U., Konstant, W.R., Glander, K., Tattersall, I., Groves, C.P., 
Rylands, A.B., Hapke, A., Ratsimbazafy, J., Mayor, M.I, Louis, E.E., Jr., Rumpler, Y., 
Schwitzer, C. & Rasoloarison, R.M. 2008. Lemur diversity in Madagascar. International 
Journal of Primatology, 29: 1607-1656. 

Orlando, L., Calvignac, S., Schnebelen, C., Douady, C.J., Godfrey, L.R. & Hanni, C. 2008. 
DNA from extinct giant lemurs links archaeolemurids to extant indriids. BMC Evolu- 
tionary Biology, 8: \-9. 

Palmer, T.S. 1904. Index generum mammalium. A list of the genera and families of mammals. 
North American Fauna, 23: 1-984. 

Perez, V., Godfrey, L., Nowakkemp, M., Burney, D., Ratsimbazafy, J. & Vasey, N. 2005. 
Evidence of early butchery of giant lemurs in Madagascar. Journal of Human Evolution, 
49: 722-742. 

Polk, J.D., Williams, S.A., Peterson, J.V., Roseman, C.C. & Godfrey, L.R. 2010. Subchondral 
bone apparent density and locomotor behavior in extant primates and subfossil lemurs 
Hadropithecus and Pachylemur. International Journal of Primatology, 31: 275-299. 

Shapiro, L.J., Seiffert, C.V., Godfrey, L.R., Jungers, W.L., Simons, E.L. & Randria, G.F. 2005. 
Morphometric analysis of lumbar vertebrae in extinct Malagasy strepsirrhines. American 
Journal of Physical Anthropology, 128: 823-839. 


280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


Shoshani, J., Groves, C.P., Simons, E.L. & Gunnell, G.F. 1996. Primate phylogeny: morpho- 
logical vs molecular results. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 5: 102-154. 

Simons, E.L., Godfrey, L.R., Jungers, W.L., Chatrath, P.S. & Ravaoarisoa, J. 1995. A new 
species of Mesopropithecus (Primates: Palaeopropithecidae) from northern Madagascar. 
International Journal of Primatology, 16: 653-682. 

Smith, G.E. 1903. On the morphology of the brain in the Mammalia, with special reference to 
that of the lemurs, recent and extinct. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 
Zoology, (2)8: 319-432. 

Standing, H.F. 1904. Rapport sur des ossements sub-fossiles provenant d’Ampasambazibma. 
1. — Les Lémuriens (Suite). Bulletin de Académie Malgache, 3: 305-310. 

Tardieu, C. & Jouffroy, F.K. 1979. Les surfaces articulaires fémorales du genou chez les 
Primates: étude préliminaire. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Zoologie, (13)1: 23-38. 
Tattersall, I. 1973. Cranial anatomy of the Archaeolemurinae (Lemuroidea, Primates). 

Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, 52: 1-110. 

Tattersall, I. 1982. The Primates of Madagascar. 382 pp. Columbia University Press, New 
York. 

Turvey, S.T. 2009. Holocene mammal extinctions. Jn Turvey, S.T. (Ed.), Holocene extinctions. 
352 pp. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 

Virah-Sawmy, M., Willis, K.J. & Gillson, L. 2010. Evidence for drought and forest declines 
during the recent megafaunal extinctions in Madagascar. Journal of Biogeography, 37: 
506-5 19. 


Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 68: 94. 
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they 


should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 281 


Comment on CHILODONTIDAE Macalister, 1876 (Ciliophora), CHILODONTINAE 
Eigenmann, 1910 (Pisces, Characiformes) and CHILODONTINAE Wenz, 1938 
(Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed resolution of homonymy between family-group 
names 

(Case 3555; see BZN 68: 175-179) 


D.L. Geiger 


Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 2559 Puesta del Sol Road, 
Santa Barbara, CA 93105, U.S.A. (e-mail: geiger@vetigastropoda.com) 


The central issue is whether the emendation of the fish family-level name is justified. 
It becomes a balancing act between two principles of zoological nomenclature: 
original intent vs. stability. In the case of the fish family CHILODIDAE Eigenmann, 1910 
[original spelling], there is no indication that the family name was malformed in the 
original description. The subsequent arguments cited in Case 3555 are at best 
adventurous and could just as well be considered an unjustified emendation. 

For the fish type-genus Chilodus Miiller & Troschel, 1844, there is no perceptible 
reference to teeth. Generally in nomenclature, much deference is given to the original 
spelling, even if it might be at slight variance to traditional linguistics. An example is 
the alternate spelling of silva and sylva for the Latin ‘forest’; the letter y is unknown 
in the classical Latin alphabet, but spellings with y are maintained (e.g. Scissurella 
transylvanica Reuss, 1860). Or consider the case of Scissurella evaensis Bandel, 1998 
with locative suffix —ensis, although the species was explicitly named for Mrs Eva 
Vinx. Geiger (2003) as first reviser explicitly retained the original spelling as it was 
carried out consistently. The argument that the diphtong —ou is equivalent to —u is 
one interpretation of the Code (Article 29.3.2). An alternate interpretation is the 
significant single letter variance (Article 58 Example). Whether —odus or —us is the 
correct suffix is a further issue, as chil- as well as chilod- are equally good prefixes. The 
Code does not require the names to be formal, grammatically correct derivations, 
they do not need to convey meaning in any specific language (e.g. fish genus 
Abudefduf, snail genus J/ttibittium), they only need to sound Latin. Chilodus with root 
Chilod- meets those criteria. While the —u-/-ou- equivalence may be supported by 
additional data in other type-genera of fish families, it is not sufficient to extend this 
observation to all such generic names ending in -odus. Nomenclature is based on the 
examination of individual cases, not the overextension of select observations. 

In summary, the simpler construct in agreement with the original spelling with the 
fewest unsupported, ad-hoc assumptions should be chosen as basis for the formation 
of names. The linguistic argument for the emendation of the fish family name has to 
be dismissed. 

If the fish name is accepted as outlined in Case 3555, it sets a dangerous precedent 
for more nomenclatural alterations at the whim of subsequent authors. If the 
emended fish spelling should be maintained by the Commission, then it should be 
made clear in the accompanying Opinion that the emendation is unjustified, and that 
it is retained solely in the interest of stability. One could even debate the argument of 
stability, as one name — Mollusca or fish — has to be changed, but there is only a 12 
year difference between the certainly properly formed molluscan name by Wenz 
(1938) and the emendation of the fish family in 1950. One may argue that the already 


282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


emended name should be further modified, whereas the certainly properly formed 
one 1s to be retained in its original spelling. If it is accepted that the already emended 
fish name should be modified, it would be most appropriate to revert to the original 
spelling of Eigenmann, serving at once the purpose of removing homonymy and 
respecting original intent. 

In conclusion, I advocate the reversion of the fish family name to the original 
CHILODIDAE, retaining the molluscan CHILODONTIDAE unchanged, and placing the 
unused protistan CHILODONTIDAE on the Official Index. 


Additional references 


Geiger, D.L. 2003. Phylogenetic assessment of characters proposed for the generic classifica- 
tion of Recent Scissurellidae (Gastropoda: Vetigastropoda) with description of one new 
genus and six new species from Easter Island and Australia. Molluscan Research, 23: 
21-83. 


Comment on Pleurotoma scabriuscula Brugnone, 1862 (currently Mangelia 
scabriuscula; Mollusca, Gastropoda, CONOIDEA): proposed conservation 
(Case 3558; see BZN 68: 180-183) 


Riccardo Giannuzzi Savelli 
Via Mater Dolorosa, 54, Palermo, Italy (e-mail: malakos@tin.1t) 


Francesco Pusater1 
Via Castellana 64, 90135 Palermo, Italy (e-mail: francesco@pusatet1.it) 


We strongly support the application of Scarponi et al. and we fully agree with their 
well presented considerations. We consider it to be of primary interest to maintain the 
stability of nomenclature. 


Comments on Cornu Born, 1778 (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Pulmonata, HELICIDAE): 
request for a ruling on the availability of the generic name 
Case 3518; (see BZN 68: 97-104) 


(1) Dietrich Kadolsky 


66 Heathhurst Road, Sanderstead, Surrey CR2 OBA, U.K. 
(e-mail: kadolsky@btsgeo.com ) 


I agree with Cowie’s interpretation of Article 1.3.2 of the Code, and his application 
of this Article to the name Cornu Born, 1778. Consequently, I support fully his 
proposals. The endorsement by the ICZN of this genus-group name as being valid 
would be most conducive to the stability of the genus name of this very common land 
snail, as Cornu is the most senior name of those potentially involved. 

A few details may be added to the application: 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 283 


A live scalarid specimen of Cornu aspersum resembling the specimen described and 
figured by Born (1778) was figured by Bailey (2006, p. 12). Schileyko (2006, p. 1817, 
fig. 2330B) illustrates a syntype of Cornu copiae Born. 


Additional references: 


Bailey, B. 2006. Scalariform Canthareus [sic] aspersus. The Malacologist. Bulletin of the 
Malacological Society of London, 47: 12. 

Schileyko, A.A. 2006 (’XI. 2005’). Treatise on recent terrestrial pulmonate molluscs. Ruthenica, 
Supplement, 2(14): 1907-2047. 


(2) Cristian R. Altaba 


Department of Philosophy and Social Work, University of the Balearic 
Islands, 07122 Palma, Balearic Islands, Spain 
(e-mail: cristianr.altaba@uib.cat) 


Why it is Cryptomphalus, not Cornu 


The land snail described as Helix aspersa Miiller, 1774 (included in the Official List 
of Specific Names in Zoology by Opinion 336, Opinions and Declarations, 10: 
77-108, March 1955) is native to a small area in the central Mediterranean, but has 
long been introduced throughout most of western and central Europe, and more 
recently into virtually all temperate areas (Barker, 1999; Madec et al., 2003). It is 
usually abundant, and is indeed an economically relevant species, both as food and 
as an agricultural pest. That this species is currently referred to in the zoological 
literature by no less than four generic assignments (letting aside misspellings) is surely 
problematic. Some of the reasons for this situation are taxonomic, but nomenclature 
is also a key issue. Recently, Cowie (BZN 68: 97-104) has proposed that the wording 
of Article 1.3.2 be interpreted to confirm the availability of Cornu Born, 1778. 
Herewith I show that there are no grounds or need for any such ruling. 

The distinctiveness of Helix aspersa relative to Helix pomatia Linnaeus, 1758 (type 
of Helix Linnaeus, 1758) was clearly stated by Charpentier (1837) when erecting 
Cryptomphalus, and thoroughly documented by Moquin-Tandon (1855), who used it 
as subgenus. This combination Helix (Cryptomphalus) aspersa has been used by 
many subsequent authors (Bofill & Haas, 1919a, 1919b, 1920; Bofill et al., 1920; 
Germain, 1930; Degner, 1930; Webb, 1943; Pilsbry, 1940; Renoux & Quatrefarges, 
1951; Sparks, 1952; Colom, 1957; Zilch, 1960; Giusti, 1969; Bizot, 1971; Bequaert & 
Miller, 1973; Damjanov & Likharev, 1975; Backhuys, 1975; Manga-Gonzalez & 
Cordero del Campillo, 1979; Hartwig et al., 1980; Hueto et al., 1982; Manga- 
Gonzalez, 1983; Altimira Aleu & Altaba, 1985; Mas-Coma & Montoliu, 1987; 
Morrondo & Manga, 1989; Ferreri, 1994; Manga & Morrondo-Pelayo, 1994; 
Gracenea & Gonzalez-Moreno, 2002). Recognizing conspicuous differences with the 
various species included in Helix s.s., genus rank for Cryptomphalus has also been 
widely used, either as Cryptomphalus aspersus (Haas, 1918, 1924a,b, 1929; Aguilar- 
Amat, 1929, 1933; Colom, 1954; Espafiol i Cabeza, 1969; Jaeckel, 1969; Mercadal et 
al., 1970; Gasull, 1972; Parisi & Gandolfi, 1974; Gasull & Alcover, 1982; Falkner, 
1990, 1993; Frank, 1995; Cossignani & Cossignani, 1995; Turner et al., 1998; Gallo, 
1998; Baminger & Haase, 1999; Kerney et al., 1999; Robinson, 1999, 2001; Badii & 


284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


Flores, 2001; Bojat et al., 2001; Scarabino, 2003; Yildrim et al., 2004; Kiss et al., 2004; 
Campos & Calvo, 2006; Schileyko, 2006; Sverlova, 2006; Hubenov, 2007; Egorov, 
2008; Sysoev & Shileyko, 2009), without gender agreement (Cryptomphalus aspersa: 
Goeden, 1974; Paniagua & Vazquez, 1976; Flores et al., 1986a, b, 1988, 1992; Faus, 
1988; Dedov, 1998; Trib6 et al., 1999; Brieva et al., 2008; Leonov, 2009), or with 
various misspellings (such as Criptomphalus aspersus: Ortiz de Zarate Lopez, 1991). 
The above references are by no means the outcome of an exhaustive search; but they 
suffice to show that the majority of authors from a wide variety of specialties and 
countries have placed H. aspersa within Cryptomphalus. The discovery of a single 
synapomorphy in the internal structure of the male genitalia shared by H. aspersa 
with H. aperta Born, 1778 (type of Cantareus Risso, 1826) enabled Giusti et al. (1996) 
to synonymize Cryptomphalus as junior synonym, thus proposing the combination 
Cantareus aspersus. This has been followed by some authors (Neubert, 1998; Barker, 
1999; Koene & Schulenburg, 2005; Manganelli et al., 2005; Wade et al., 2006, 2007; 
Ansart et al., 2007; Groenenberg et al., in press). However, lumping H. aspersa and 
H. aperta within Cantareus on the basis of a single shared trait ignores the 
conspicuous differences in general morphology, external appearance and ecology 
between these two species (already shown by Moquin-Tandon, 1855), and is at odds 
with the tendency to recognize small genera within HELICOIDEA by those same 
authors. At any rate, using Cantareus aspersus is a taxonomic decision that may not 
be sound but is in agreement with the Code. 

As shown by molecular studies (Manganelli et al., 2005; Groenenberg et al., in 
press), H. aspersa and H. aperta are indeed closely related taxa. The closest genus to 
this clade is Eobania Hesse, 1913, while Helix proper is more distantly related. This 
is relevant in biogeographic terms. The group formed by Eobania, Cryptomphalus 
and Cantareus is native to southernmost Italy and Sicily. Remarkably, this area 
exported several land snail species throughout the Mediterranean already in Ancient 
times (Altaba, 2000). An implication for nomenclature is that the all-too-usual, surely 
Code-compliant, attractively simple option of leaving Helix aspersa within Helix 
(while accepting the validity of the very distinctive Eobania, which nobody appears to 
question) just doesn’t agree with a natural taxonomy. 

In the curiosities vogue of 18th century natural history cabinets, Born (1778) gave 
notorious relevance to an open-coiled terrestrial shell — it is the only figured specimen 
in a final color plate where it is shown in two views; (this plate is actually referred to 
in the text, contrary to the statement by Cowie (BZN 68: 97—104)). Obviously it was 
considered a nature’s wonder. Indeed, in the preface he warns the reader that he has 
strictly followed the Linnaean system (‘Eas Conchyliorum species, quas Linnaei 
systema haud completitur, methodo, summo huic vir usitata, descripsi. . .”), refraining 
from any alternative, in order to highlight the rarest of nature’s objects (‘in iis rarum 
et singulare admirandum est’). Thus he named the open-coiled shell Cornu copiae — 
an obvious word game referring to the shape of such unique a specimen. In its 
description, Born (p. 372) states that maybe this is different from Miiller’s (1774) 
species 313 (more explicit in the German text: ‘Dadurch unterscheidet sie sich als eine 
besondere Art von einer, welcher Seba und Argenville und vielleicht auch von der, 
welcher Otto Miiller gedenket.’). The latter is Helix scalaris (Miller, 1774, pp. 
113-114), described as a shell having the color and texture of H. pomatia, yet truly 
splendidly distinct from other of its kind by its shape (‘Testa colore & substantia H. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 285 


Pomatiae, figura vero a congeneribus splendide distincta. . .’). Miller refers to a figure 
in Argenville (1757, pl. 9, fig. 8 and p. 82), stating that his ‘species’ is not the same 
as that shown there, because the soft parts depicted in that figure are rather those of 
an aquatic snail. Indeed, Argenville’s figure (reproduced also in the posthumous third 
edition of his work in 1780, Pl. LX XVI, fig. L) shows an (almost) open-coiled H. 
aspersa from whose aperture an abnormal head-foot pops out — likely as a pictorial 
indication of the teratological nature of such specimen. These soft parts are reported 
as most unusual: ‘I] paroit que cet animal se partage en deux parties: dans l’une est 
son col, avec sa téte garnie de deux cornes, & de ses yeux en dehors; dans l’autre est 
situé le reste de son corps terminé par un opercule’ (Argenville, 1762, p. 82). At any 
rate, the soft parts of this open-coiled land snail in Argenville (1757, 1780) are surely 
invented, and thus Miller (1774) was wrong in maintaining that his H. scalaris was 
different from the shell in that figure. It appears also that Miller was fully aware of 
the fact that the traits separating his H. scalaris from other specimens of its kind (i.e. 
conspecific individuals of H. aspersa) were of a unique, individual nature. Likewise, 
Born’s Cornu copiae appears to be a junior synonym of H. scalaris. In a later edition, 
Born (1780) kept placing great value on his Cornu copiae, this time illustrating it, also 
in two views, inside an elaborate frame. Judging from the figures published by Born, 
Cornu copiae could be a teratological individual of either H. pomatia or H. aspersa, 
or even Eobania vermiculata (Miller, 1774). However, because from its description it 
appears to be the same as H. scalaris Miller, 1774, and given that the latter was 
clearly stated to be an individual, albeit splendid aberration, it follows that Cornu 
copiae is indeed based on a teratological specimen that was known as such. Thus, the 
binomen Cornu copiae is objectively not valid according to Article 1.3.2 of the Code 
and there is no need for either Schileyko’s (2006) claim that is should be considered 
a nomen oblitum (correctly dismissed by Cowie, BZN 68: 97-104), or Cowie’s 
proposal. 

The teratological nature of Cornu copiae was unanimously agreed upon by all 
workers during nearly two centuries. The opinions of Deshayes (1832, 1838), Beck 
(1838), Gray (1847), Forbes & Hanley (1853) and Taylor (1910) are reviewed by 
Cowie (BZN 68: 97-104), but it is worth adding a few more. Pfeiffer (1841) didn’t 
mention it, even when dealing with other parts of Born’s books. Later on, Pfeiffer 
(1848, p. 242) was exhaustive and thus listed under Helix aspersa its ‘var. 6’, a 
monstrosity with detached whorls that fits exactly what Born (1780) showed 
(‘Monstrosa, scalaris vel anfractibus omino solutis: Born Mus. t. 13. f.10.11.’). Leach 
(1852, Pl. II, fig. 2) shows a live individual of the very rare “open-turreted variety’. 
Germain (1930, p. 35) mentioned indeed (against Cowie’s statement) the cornucopia 
monstrosity that occasionally affects large helicids: ‘Enfin, exceptionnellement, la 
coquille, entiérement déroulée, affecte assez nettement la forme d’une corne 
d’abondance; elle est cératoide (Helix pomatia L., H. aspersa Mill.).’ Gasull (1972, 
lam. 1, fig. 1) showed a cornucopioid Cryptomphalus aspersus from Mallorca. 

The proposal to use Cornu (as subgenus) instead of its purported junior synonym 
Cryptomphalus was first made by Pilsbry (1948: 1091). As Cowie (BZN 68: 97-104) 
points out, the lack of followers to this claim may have been due to this being stated 
in the ‘Additions and Corrections’ at the very end of his monumental work. 
However, what Pilsbry actually says about Cornu is relevant: “This name was not 
used in my text because I thought that a genus founded on an abnormal specimen is 


286 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


Fig. 1. Cornucopioid Cryptomphalus aspersus (Miiller, 1774). Left, type specimen of Cornu copiae Born, 
1778 in the Natur historisches Museum Wien (37.4 mm) (courtesy of Anita Escher, curator of molluscs). 
Right, specimen in the Salvador Cabinet (ca. 1750), at the Botanical Institute of Barcelona (36.3 mm). 


invalid. However, nothing in the International code seems to exclude such names.’ 
This is exactly what Article 1.3.2 of the current Code addresses. As shown above, 
Cornu copiae was indeed intended for a teratological specimen as such (contrary to 
the claim by Cowie, BZN 68: 97-104). 

The second stand to resurrect Cornu was by Waldén (1976). This apparently stems 
from a mistaken, superficial reading of Born’s work, without considering the 
above-mentioned references given therein to previous works. The same error was 
made by Gerber (2000), who claimed that Born considered Cornu copiae a valid and 
distinct species. Gerber makes an untenable leap between the modern concept of 
biological species and the individual curiosity named by Born during the Enlightment 
era of natural history cabinets. This was followed uncritically by Falkner et al. (2001). 
Likewise, Roth & Sadeghian (2003) backed the use of Cornu, having failed to find any 
evidence of an indication of the teratological nature of Cornu copiae in distinction to 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 287 


other individuals of the same species (ignoring the reference to Miiller’s H. scalaris). 
Anderson (2005) justified the use of Cornu based on both the previous choice by 
Walden (1976) and the apparent need for a genus-level name for H. aspersa: ‘The 
generic name for the common garden snail has been a source of controversy for some 
time. At least three alternatives are circulating in the literature, including Cantareus 
Risso and Cryptomphalus Charpentier, which are now generally applied to species in 
different helicid clades from aspersa.’ However, this is incorrect, because H. aspersa 
is indeed the type of Cryptomphalus. Thus, nothing actually sustains the purported 
availability of Cornu. It is troublesome that such an error can slip into regional 
species lists with such ease (e.g. Falkner et al., 2001; Roth & Sadeghian, 2003; Stanisic 
et al. 2010). Nevertheless, a few publications can still be found where the name Cornu 
aspersum is actually used (see references in Cowie, BZN 68: 97-104). 

Without taking into account the reference to previous works, and looking only at 
the figures by Born (1778, 1780), Cornu copiae could in fact be any cornucopioid 
specimen belonging to the group formed by Helix s.s., Cryptomphalus, Cantareus and 
Eobania. Remarkably, none of the proponents of Cornu appear to have actually 
examined any type material. Fortunately, the holotype of Cornu copiae is extant. 
Thanks to Anita Escher, Curator of Mollusks at the Natural History Museum in 
Vienna, it has been located (Fig. 1, left). Inside the aperture, the word ‘Born’ is 
written in ink. It is indeed an open-coiled (i.e. “cornucopioid’) specimen of Helix 
aspersa. The accompanying label refers to its teratological nature as already indicated 
by Pfeiffer (1841), who may have actually studied this type specimen. 

A remarkably similar specimen exists in the Salvador Cabinet, now housed at the 
Botanical Institute of Barcelona (IBB). This cabinet (Camarasa Castillo, 2004; 
Ibafiez, 2006) was built by three generations of the enlightened Salvador family. The 
cabinet was closed in 1854, the shell collection is still in good condition and retains 
many of the original labels. A preliminary inventory of this malacological collection 
showed that it contains specimens originating in many distant countries (Hernandez 
et al., 2003). Indeed, it was mentioned by Argenville (1780, p. 314) as one of the most 
important natural history cabinets of his time. The Salvadors maintained an intense 
exchange of letters and specimens with naturalists of all Europe, including Linnaeus 
— who named the plant genus Salvadora after them. Also preserved are documents 
relative to the acquisition of shells from James Petiver and Hans Sloane — who 
acquired several important natural history collections and left his own to be the 
origin of the British Museum. I have examined the Salvador Cabinet thanks to the 
kind interest of its custodians, Josep Montserrat, Neus Ibafiez and staff at IBB. A 
central cell in one of the shell drawers contains two odd H. aspersa specimens: a 
scalariform (very high-spired but with whorls attached) and a cornucopioid. The 
latter has its apex broken, but is surprisingly similar to the holotype of Cornu copiae 
in Vienna (Fig. 1, right). The accompanying label, written in Spanish, states that this 
is a variety of Helix aspersa (normal specimens have number 88 written in ink and 
also on their label) ‘resulting from an illness of the worm’ (‘Varietas de n° 88 que es 
el resultado de una enfermedad del gusano’). Older labels and documents in the 
Salvador Cabinet are all written in Catalan, but this was forbidden in official 
paperwork after the defeat of the Austrian and Catalan army in 1714. Thus, the 
cornucopiod’s label was likely written when the stylish drawers intended for public 
exhibition were set. 


288 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


The Vienna and Barcelona cornucopioids may come from the same population. 
This is a likely possibility, because Born studied in Vienna the natural history 
collection that was the origin of the present Natural History Museum (Riedl-Dorn, 
1999). Most of it had been bought by the Austrian Emperor in 1749 from the Duke 
of Tuscany. That collection was largely assembled by Giovanni de Baillou (also 
known as Johann Ritter von Baillou or Jean Chevallier de Baillou), who had become 
director of the Uffici in Florence in 1735 and followed his cherished objects to become 
the first director of the Hof Cabinet. The cornucopioid shells were an extremely rare 
and sought after curiosity, and it is quite likely that both Argenville and Baillou 
obtained them from the Salvadors. At any rate, what the Salvador cornucopioid 
proves is that the teratological nature of such a land shell was public knowledge 
among learned naturalists of the Enlightenment. All the evidence suggests that Born 
must have been aware of the fact that his Cornu copiae was representing a 
teratological (and splendid) variation. 

It is therefore my opinion, that the Commission should not rule on Case 3518 as 
proposed by Cowie. The proposal to make Cornu available is not based on actual 
facts, because Cornu copiae was based on a teratological specimen known from the 
start as such. Therefore, the current Code solves this case without any extraordinary 
ruling. Moreover, the use of Cornu (instead of Cryptomphalus) has been promoted by 
a minority of authors in the last decade, on the basis of mistaken reading of the 
literature, no consultation of type material, and forced interpretation of early 
zoological nomenclature. Such a proposal would vulnerate stability, unicity and 
universality of the names of animals, and thus should be disregarded. 


Additional references 


Aguilar-Amat, J.B. d’. 1929. Observaciones malacoldégicas. VIII. Moluscos de una excursion a 
la Alta Garrotxa (Gerona). Butlleti de la Institucié Catalana d’Historia Natural, 29: 
111-112 

Aguilar-Amat, J.B. d’. 1933. Observacions malacologiques. XIX. Contribucidé al coneixement 
de la malacofauna menorquina. Butlleti de la Institucié Catalana d’Historia Natural, 33: 
324-338. 

Altaba, C.R. 2000. Are all mass invasions alike? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15: 248. 

Altimira Aleu, C. & Altaba, C.R. 1985. Els mol-luscs terrestres de les Illes Medes. Pp. 223-230, 
in Ros, J., Olivella, I. & Gili, J.M. (Eds.), Els sistemes naturals de les Illes Medes. Institut 
d’Estudis Catalans, Barcelona. 

Anderson, R. 2005. An annotated list of the non-marine mollusca of Britain and Ireland. 
Journal of Conchology, 38: 607- 637. 

Argenville, A.-J.D. d’. 1757. L’histoire naturelle éclaircie dans une des ses partie principales, la 
Conchyliologie, qui traite des coquillages de mer, de riviére et terre; ouvrage dans lequel on 
trouve une nouvelle méthode latine & francoise de les diviser: augmentée de la Zoomorphose, 
ou représentation des animaux a coquilles, avec leurs explication. Nouvelle édition, enrichie 
de figures dessinées d’aprés Nature. 394 pp., 9, 3 pls. De Bure, Paris. 

Argenville, A.-J.D. d’. 1780. La Conchyliologie, ou histoire naturelle des coquilles de mer, d’eau 
douce, terrestres et fossiles, avec un traité de la Zoomorphose, ou représentation des animaux 
qui les habitent: ouvrage dans lequel on trouve une nouvelle méthode de les diviser. 3e édition. 
De Bure, Paris. 878 pp., pls. I-Lxxx (+ 1) [facsimile edition of plates, 2009. 216 pp. 
Taschen, Koln]. 

Backhuys, W. 1975. Land and freshwater mollusks of the Azores. xii, 350 pp., 32 pls., 97 maps. 
Backhuys & Meesters, Amsterdam. 

Badii, M.H. & Flores, A.E. 2001. Prickly pear cacti pests and their control in Mexico. Florida 
Entomologist, 84: 503-505. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 289 


Baminger, H. & Haase, M. 1999. Variation in spermathecal morphology and amount of sperm 
stored in populations of the simultaneously hermaphroditic land snail Arianta arbusto- 
rum. Journal of Zoology, 249: 165-171 

Bequaert, J.C. & Miller, W.B. 1973. The mollusks of the arid southwest. With an Arizona check 
list. xvi, 271 pp. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Bizot, M. 1971. Activité hémagglutinante des extraits de glande d’albumine de Helix 
(Cryptomphalus ) aspersa et de Helix (Helix) pomatia. Revue Frangaise de Transfusion, 14: 
445-53. 

Bofill, A. & Haas, F. 1919a. Mol-luscos recollits en Asturias, en 1918 per Josep Maluquer, 
precedits de consideracions bibliografiques sobre la malacologia asturiana. Butilleti de la 
Instituciod Catalana d’Historia Natural, 19: 25-34. 

Bofill, A. & Haas, F. 1919b. Mol-luscos terrestres i d’aigua dol¢a de la regié de Tortosa. Butlleti 
de la Institucié Catalana d’ Historia Natural, 19: 128-131. 

Bofill, A. & Haas, F. 1920. Estudi sobre la malacologia de les valls pirenaiques. Conca del 
Llobregat. Treballs del Museu de Ciéncies Naturals de Barcelona, 3 (Sér. Zool., 13): 
381-831. 

Bofill, A., Haas, F. & Aguilar-Amat, J.B. d’. 1920. Estudi sobre la malacologia de les valls 
pirenaiques. Conques del Besos, Ter, Fluvia, Muga i litorals intermitjes. Treballs del 
Museu de Ciéncies Naturals de Barcelona, 3 (Sér. Zool., 14): 837-1241. 

Camarasa Castillo, J.M. 2004. De colleccié privada a museu public: el gabinet Salvador de 
l'Institut Botanic de Barcelona. Afers: fulls de recerca i pensament, 19: 721-727. 

Campos, J. & Calvo, A. 2006. Moluscos introducidos en Uruguay. Comunicaciones de la 
Sociedad Malacologica del Uruguay, 9: 75-78. 

Colom, G. 1954. El medio y la vida en las Baleares. xx, 292 pp. Published by the author, Palma 
de Mallorca. 

Colom, G. 1957. Biogeografia de las Baleares. La formacion de las islas y el origen de su flora 
y de su fauna. 568 pp. Estudio General Luliano, Palma de Mallorca. 

Cossignani, T. & Cossignani, V. 1995. Atlante delle conchiglie terrestre e dulciaquicole italiane. 
208 p. L’Informatore Piceno, Ancona. 

Damjanoy, S. & Likharevy, I. 1975. Fauna Bulgarica, Gastropoda terrestria, vol. IV. 425 pp. 
Publications of the Bulgarian Academy of Science, Sofia, 

Dedoy, I.K. 1998. Annotated check-list of the Bulgarian terrestrial snails (Mollusca, Gas- 
tropoda). Linzer biologische Beitrége, 30: 745-765. 

Degner, E. 1930. Uber das Héhen-Breitenverhaltnis der Schneckenschalen, nebst einigen 
variationsstatistischen Angaben tiber Cepaea und Zebrina. Zoomorphologie, 17: 124-144. 

Egorov, R. 2008. Treasure of Russian shells. Supplement 5. Illustrated catalogue of the recent 
terrestrial molluscs of Russia and adjacent regions. 179, [1] pp. Published by the author, 
Moscow. 

Espaiiol i Cabeza, J. 1969 (1968). Contribucié al coneixement de la morfologia i l’anatomia 
interna dels pulmonats basomatofors. Treballs de la Societat Catalana de Biologia, 25: 
47-52. 

Falkner, G. 1990. Binnenmollusken. Pp. 112-286 in Steinbach (Ed.), Weichtiere. Mosaik, 
Munchen. 

Falkner, G. 1993. Moluscos de interior. Pp. 112-286, in Steinbach (Ed.), Moluscos. Moluscos 
europeos marinos y de interior. Blume, Barcelona. 

Faus, F.V. 1988. Contribucién al conocimiento de la malacofagia de Rattus rattus (Linnaeus, 
1758). Mediterranea, Serie Biologia, 10: 19-27. 

Ferreri, D. 1994. Contributo alla conoscenza della malacofauna della Riserva Naturale ‘Le 
Cesine’ (Lecce). Thalassia Salentina, 20: 67-75. 

Flores, V., Brusco, A. & Pecci Saavedra, J. 1986a. The serotoninergic system in Cryptomphalus 
aspersa. Immunocytochemical study with an anti-5-HT antiserum. Journal of Neurobiol- 
ogy, 17: 547-561. 

Flores, V., Brusco, A. & Pecci Saavedra, J. 1988. Immunocytochemical study of the postnatal 
development of 5-HT-containing neurons and fibers in the cerebroid ganglia of Crypto- 
mphalus aspersa. International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience, 6: 359-366. 


290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


Flores, V., Brusco, A. & Pecci, J. 1986b. The origin of 5-HT fibers of the tentacular sensory 
organs of Cryptomphalus aspersa. An immunocytochemical study following transection of 
the cerebro-tentacular connective. Journal of Neurobiology, 17: 563-568. 

Flores, V., Brusco, A., Scicolone, G. & Pecci Saavedra, J. 1992. Serotoninergic reinnervation of 
regenerating tentacular sensory organs in a pulmonate snail, Cryptomphalus aspersa. 
International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience, 10: 331-340. 

Frank, C. 1995. Die Weichtiere (Mollusca): tiber Rtickwanderer, Einwanderer, Verschleppte; 
expansive und regressive Areale. In: Einwanderer/Neue Tierarten erobern Osterreich. 
Stapfia, 37: 17-53. 

Gallo, G. 1998. El caracol: cria y explotacion. 2a. ed. 179 pp. Mundi-Prensa, Madrid. 

Gasull, L. & Alcover, J.A. 1982. La cova de Ca na Reia: desconcertant estacid malacologica del 
Pleistocé de les Pititises. Endins, 9: 41-44. 

Gasull, L. 1972 (‘1970’) Casos teratologicos en los helicidos de Baleares. (Gastrop. Pulm). 
Boletin de la Sociedad de Historia Natural de Baleares, 16: 20-22. 

Gerber, J. 2000. [Review of] Giusti, F., Manganelli, G. & Schembri, P.J. (1996): The 
non-marine molluscs of the Maltese Islands. Heldia, 3: 42-44. 

Germain, L. 1930. Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles (premiére partie). Faune de France, 21: 
1-477. Paul Lechevalier, Paris. 

Goeden, R.D. 1974. Comparative survey of the phytophagous insect faunas of Italian thistle, 
Carduus pycnocephalus, in southern California and southern Europe relative to biological 
weed control. Environmental Entomology, 3: 464-474. 

Gracenea, M. & Gonzalez-Moreno, O. 2002. Life cycle of Brachylaima mascomai 0. sp. 
(Trematoda: Brachylaimidae), a parasite of rats in the Llobregat Delta (Spain). Journal of 
Parasitology, 88: 124-133. 

Groenenberg, D.S.J., Neubert, E. & Gittenberger, E. (in press). Reappraisal of the “Molecular 
phylogeny of Western Palaearctic Helicidae s.]. (Gastropoda: Stylommatophora)’: When 
poor science meets GenBank. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution (2011), 
doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2011.08.024 

Haas, F. 1918. Contribuci6 a la fauna malacoldégica de Catalunya. Alguns mol-luscos terrestres 
i d’aigua dolca de la Provincia de Tarragona. Butlleti de la Instituciod Catalana d' Historia 
Natural, 18: 70-72. 

Haas, F. 1924a. Contribucié a la fauna malacologica de la conca inferior de ’Ebre. Butlleti de 
la Institucié Catalana d’Historia Natural, 24: 48-63, lam. II. 

Haas, F. 1924b. Beitrag zur Molluskenfauna des unteren Ebrogebietes. Archiv fiir Mollusken- 
kunde, 56: 137-160. 

Haas, F. 1929. Fauna malacologica terrestre y de agua dulce de Catalunia. Trabajos del Museos 
de Ciencias Naturales de Barcelona, 13: 1-491. (Reprinted in 1991 as Treballs del Museu 
de Zoologia, 5: 1-491). 

Hartwig, H.G., Brisson, P., Lyncker, I. & Collin, J.P. 1980. Aminergic systems in pulmonate 
gastropod molluscs. Cell and Tissue Research, 210: 223-234. 

Hernandez, E., Cadevall, J., Orozco, A., Nebot, J., Bros, V. & Uribe, F. 2003. Informe sobre la 
col-leccié malacologica Gabinet Salvador. Associaciéd d’Amics del Museu de Zoologia, 
Barcelona (unpublished report). 

Hesse, P. 1913. Zur Kenntnis der Molluskenfauna von Ostrumelien. I. Nachrichtsblatt der 
Deutschen Malakozoologischen Gesellschaft, 45: 1-16. 

Hubenoy, Z. 2007. Fauna and zoogeography of marine, freshwater, and terrestrial mollusks 
(Mollusca) in Bulgaria. Pp. 141- XXX, in Fet, V. & Popov, A. (Eds.), Biogeography and 
ecology of Bulgaria. Springer, Dordrecht. 

Hueto, M.N., Martinez, A.M., Barber, A. & Ponz, F. 1982. Active transport of L-phenylalanine 
by snail intestine, Helix (Cryptomphalus) aspersa. Revista Espajiola de Fisiologia, 38: 
403-408. 

Ibafiez i Cortina, N. 2006. Estudis sobre cinc herbaris historics de Institut Botanic de Barcelona. 
290 pp. PhD thesis, University of Barcelona, Barcelona. 

Jaeckel, S.G.A. 1969. Die Mollusken Siidamerikas. Pp. 794-827, in Fittkau, E. J. (Ed.), 
Biogeography and ecology in South America, vol. 2. Junk, The Hague. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 a 


Kerney, M.P., Cameron, R.A.D. & Bertrand, A. 1999. Guide des escargots et limaces d’ Europe. 
370 pp., 28 pls. Delachaux et Niestlé, Paris. 

Kiss, L., Magnin, F. & Torre, F. 2004. The role of landscape history and persistent 
biogeographical patterns in shaping the responses of Mediterranean land snail commu- 
nities to recent fire disturbances. Journal of Biogeography, 31: 145-157 

Leach, W.E. 1852. Molluscorum Britanniae Synopsys. A synopsis of the Mollusca of Great 
Britain, arranged according to their natural affinities and anatomical structure. xvi , 376 pp., 
pls. i-xiii. John Van Vorst, London. 

Leonov, S.V. 2009. Land mollusks (Mollusca; Gastropoda) of Crimea: species check-list. 
Optimization and Protection of Ecosystems. TNU, 20: 14-19. 

Madec, L., Bellido, A. & Guiller, A. 2003. Shell shape of the land snail Cornu aspersum in North 
Africa: unexpected evidence of a phylogeographical splitting. Heredity, 91: 224-231. 
Manga, M.Y. & Morrondo-Pelayo, M.P. 1994. Larval development of ovine Neostrongylus 
linearis in four experimentally infested mollusc species. Journal of Helminthology, 68: 

207-210. 

Manga-Gonzalez, M.Y. & Cordero del Campillo, M. 1979. Helicidae (Gastropoda, Pulmonata) 
hospedadores intemediarios actuales o potenciales, de Dicrocoelium dendriticum en la 
provincia de Leén, nor-oeste de Espafia. Haliotis, 8: 179-182. 

Manga-Gonzalez, M.Y. 1983. Los Helicidae (Gastropoda, Pulmonata) de la provincia de Leén. 
Diputacion Provincial de Leén. 394 pp. Institucién “Fray Bernardino de Sahagun” 
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC). 

Mas-Coma, S. & Montoliu, I. 1987. The life cycle of Dollfusinus frontalis, a brachylaimid 
trematode of small mammals (Insectivora and Rodentia). International Journal for 
Parasitology, 17: 1063-1079. 

Mercadal, B., Villalta, J. F., Obrador, A. & Rosell, J. 1970. Nueva aportacion al conocimiento 
del Cuaternario menorquin. Acta Geologica Hispanica, 5: 89-93. 

Morrondo, M.P. & Manga, M.Y. 1989. Infestacién experimental con Muellerius capillaris y 
Neostrongylus linearis (Nematoda, Protostrongylidae) de algunas especies de moluscos 
terrestres (Stylommatophora). Revista Ibérica de Parasitologia, 49: 233-240. 

Neubert, E. 1998. Annotated checklist of the terrestrial and freshwater molluscs of the Arabian 
Peninsula with descriptions of new species. Fauna of Arabia, 17: 333-461. 

Ortiz de Zarate Lopez, A. 1991. Descripcion de los moluscos terrestres del valle del Najerilla. 400 
pp. Consejeria de Educacién, Cultura y Deportes, Gobierno de La Rioja, Logrofio. 
Parisi, V. & Gandolfi, G. 1974. Further aspects of the predation by rats on various mollusc 

species. Bollettino Zoologico, 41: 87-106. 

Pfeiffer, L. 1841-1842. Symbolae ad Historiam heliceorum. 88, 147, 100 pp. Fisher, Cassel 
[= Kassel]. 

Pfeiffer, L. 1848. Monographia heliceorum viventium. Sistens descriptiones systematicas et 
criticas omnium huius familiae generum et specierum hodie cognitarum, vol. 1. xxxii, 484 pp. 
Brockhaus, Lispsiae [= Leipzig]. 

Pilsbry, H.A. 1940. Land Mollusca of North America north of Mexico. Volume I. Part 1. 1-574 
pp. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. 

Pilsbry, H.A. 1948. Land Mollusca of North America (north of Mexico). Volume II. Part 2. 
xlvii, 521-1113 pp. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. 

Renoux, G. & Quatrefarges, H. 1951. The escape of Brucella melitensis Meyer and Shaw, from 
experimentally infected snails, H. (Cryptomphalus) aspersa Miller. Revue de Pathologie 
Comparée, 51(632): 82-84. 

Ried|-Dorn, C. 1999. The natural history collections in Vienna’s Naturhistorisches Museum. 
Cahiers d’Etude | Study series ICOM, 7: 3-5. 

Robinson, D.G. 2001. Invasive snails: deliberate introductions. P. 13, in Seeno, T.N. & Eichlin, 
T.D., (Eds.), Annual Report, Plant Pest Diagnostics Branch. California Department of 
Food & Agriculture, Sacramento. 

Scarabino, F. 2003. Lista sistematica de los Gastropoda terrestres vivientes de Uruguay. 
Comunicaciones de la Sociedad Malacolégica del Uruguay, 8: 203-214. 


292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


Schileyko, A.A. 2006. Treatise on Recent terrestrial pulmonate molluscs. Part 13: Helicidae, 
Pleurodontidae, Polygyridae, Ammonitellidae, Oreohelicidae, Thysanophoridae. 
Ruthenica, Supplement, 2(10): 1765-1906. 

Sparks, B.W. 1952. Notes on some Pleistocene sections at Barrington, Cambridgeshire. 
Geological Magazine, 89: 163-174. 

Sverlova, N.V. 2006. O rasprostranenii nekotorykh vidov nazemnykh mollyuskov na territorii 
Ukrainy. Ruthenica, 16: 119-139. 

Sysoev, A. & Schileyko, A. 2009. Land snails and slugs of Russia and adjacent countries. 312 pp. 
Sofia, Pensoft. 

Taylor, J.W. 1910-1911. Monograph of Helix aspersa. In: Monograph of the land and 
freshwater Mollusca of the British Isles, 3(17): 236-272, pls. 23-24. 

Trib6é M.J., Serra Balrich, E., Asin, M. & Camarasa, J.G. 1999. Evaluacion de la eficacia 
antiarrugas y reafirmante de un producto a base de Cryptomphalus aspersa en el 
tratamiento del fotoenvejecimiento cutaneo. Dermatologia Cosmética, 9: 18-24 

Turner, H., Kuiper, J.G.J., Thew, N., Bernasconi, R., Riietschi, J., Wiithrich, M. & Gosteli, M. 
1998. Mollusca. Atlas. Fauna Helvetica, 2: 1-527. Centre Suisse pour la Cartographie de 
la Faune (SSCF/SZKF) & Schweizerische Entomologische Gesellschaft (SES/SEG), 
Neuchatel. 

Webb, G.R. 1943. The mating of the Landsnail Haplotrema concavum (Say). American Midland 
Naturalist, 30: 341-345. 

Yildrim, M.Z., Kebapci, U. & Giimiis, B.A. 2004. Edible snails (terrestrial) of Turkey. Turkish 
Journal of Zoology, 28: 329-335. 


Comments on the proposed precedence of Maculinea van Eecke, 1915 over Phengaris 
Doherty, 1891 (Lepidoptera, LYCAENIDAE) 
(Case 3508: see BZN 67: 129-132, 245, 315-319) 


(1) M.G. Morris, M.V.L. Barclay and D. Agassiz 


Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, 
London SW7 5BD, U.K. 
(e-mail: m.morris@nhm.ac.uk, m.barclay@nhm.ac.uk) 


We support the application by Balletto et al. (BZN 67: 129) to give precedence to 
Maculinea van Eecke, 1915 over Phengaris Doherty, 1891. The three main grounds 
are: (i) The importance to a wide range of users of the Maculinea butterfly-ant 
interactions that have been the subject of many recent papers in important biological 
journals and in which the generic name Maculinea has almost always been employed; 
(ii) The almost universal use of the generic name Maculinea for several butterfly 
species of considerable importance to conservationists; (111) Protection of the stability 
of an animal name in use by numerous non-taxonomist stakeholders, whose opinion 
of, and respect for, zoological nomenclature and taxonomy in general may depend on 
the stability of just a few familiar names. 

In arguing against the application, Fric et al. (BZN 67: 315) remarked that the 
authors of Case 3508 ‘fail to provide a taxonomically feasible way to preserve the 
name Maculinea’. However, there is no known taxonomic impediment to a straight- 
forward application to plenary power to give precedence to Maculinea over 
Phengaris. 

Fric et al. also gave a detailed account of the nomenclatural history of the 
Maculinea butterflies, but, with the exception of the idiosyncratic action of Nassig 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 293 


(1995) in synonymising Maculinea with Glaucopsyche, most of the detail relates to the 
period roughly up to the middle of the twentieth century. More recent work has seen 
Maculinea used in a majority of cases, particularly in the biological, evolutionary and 
conservation literature (as opposed to the strictly taxonomic). We do not agree with 
Fric et al.’s dismissal of the significance of prevailing usage in field guides, 
distribution atlases and other publications that they consider not to be of ‘major 
scientific importance’ (p. 315). On the contrary, the taxonomic community is by 
definition the most likely to understand and accept nomenclatural change, and it is 
the much larger non-taxonomic user base and their needs that the principle of 
stability seeks to protect. Recent experience has shown (e.g. Vane-Wright, 2011) that 
many non-taxonomic users are increasingly using alternative ‘vernacular’ nomencla- 
tures (that lack the advantage of universality) and moving away from the use of 
scientific nomenclature, which is popularly perceived as legalistic, complicated and 
unstable. Any changes in the names of well-known organisms serve to reinforce this 
undesirable trend. For example, the recent uptake of Phengaris by some specialists 
and the continued use of Maculinea by others may be resulting in more use of the 
vernacular name ‘Large Blue’ (meaningless or misleading outside the U.K.) in recent 
British conservation literature. Furthermore, if Balletto et al. (2010) were to be 
unsuccessful, conservationists and ecologists, especially, are likely to continue to 
employ Maculinea. This would have the effect of dividing nomenclature into ‘official’ 
and ‘practical’ usages with detriment to the perception of the Code and Zoological 
Nomenclature among non-taxonomic communities. 


Additional references 


Nassig, W. 1995. Die Tagfalter der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Vorschlag fiir ein modernes, 
phylogenetisch orientiertes Artenverzeichnis (komentierte Checkliste). Entomologische 
Nachrichten und Berichte, 39: 1-28. 

Vane-Wright, R.I. 2011. ICZN — an increasing concern for zoological nomenclature? Antenna, 
35: 114-117. 


(2) David Agassiz 
Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, 


London SW7 SBD, U.K. 
(email: d.agassiz@nhm.ac.uk) 


I would like to support the proposal to conserve the name Maculinea as this genus of 
butterflies is so important, not just for Lepidoptera taxonomy but on account of its 
interest in myrmicophily among LYCAENIDAE. 


294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


Comments on the proposed conservation of usage of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 
1812 (currently Geochelone (Aldabrachelys) gigantea; Reptilia, Testudines) 

(Case 3463; see BZN 66: 34-50, 80-87, 169-186, 274-290, 352-357; 67: 71-90, 
170-178, 246-254, 319-331; 68: 72-77, 140-143) 


(1) Anthony Cheke 


139 Hurst Street, Oxford OX4 1HE, U.K. 
(e-mail: anthony.cheke@dodobooks.com) 


Frazier & Matyot (2010; BZN 68: 140-143) have attempted to sideline the putative 
lectotype of the Aldabra tortoise, the Leiden specimen collected by Dussumier, by 
arguing that it cannot be considered suitable as its provenance is uncertain on both 
historical and genotypic (DNA) grounds. In relation to the correct name for the 
species in question, there are two issues they have not considered. 

1. If they are correct that the uncertain provenance of RMNH 3231 makes this 
specimen an unsuitable lectotype, it follows that the next available name, i.e. Testudo 
elephantina Duméril & Bibron, 1835 should be (re-)adopted, its type locality 
restricted to Aldabra by Giinther in 1877 (see Bour & Pritchard, BZN 66: 169-174, 
2009). Their arguments provide no support for, nor have they any bearing on, the 
conservation and continued use of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 for the 
Aldabra tortoise, a move Frazier himself initiated. That decision depends entirely on 
the status of a quite different specimen, MNHN 9554, and the Commission’s verdict 
on that, as discussed in numerous previous submissions in relation to this case. 

In that context it should be noted that quite recently a Portuguese scholar, Luis 
Ceriaco, examined MNHN 9554 in connection with a study on the surviving 
specimens from the former “Cabinet d’Ajuda’ in Lisbon. He concluded that this 
tortoise is clearly stuffed in the manner used for large specimens in that establishment 
at the end of the 18th century (Roger Bour, pers. comm. 13 September 2011). This is 
a new element adding to the already very strong evidence that this specimen is the 
very Brazilian tortoise “e collectione regia Libonens1’ described by Schweigger in 1812 
as Testudo gigantea. 

It is certainly unfortunate when the rediscovery or re-identification of a type 
transfers a familiar name to a different species, but as I and others have commented 
before (e.g. BZN 67(1):79-81), the same process with the Galapagos tortoises, equally 
iconic, did not incur the extraordinary reaction (and polarisation) that has been 
spawned by Case 3463, nor indeed any of world-wide confusion predicted for the 
Aldabra case. Why are people prepared readily to lose the equally long-established 
elephantopus but are yet so attached to gigantea ? 

2. The fact that a type specimen was collected in an area where it is not native is 
not per se an impediment to its use in nomenclature, as Frazier & Matyot imply, even 
if they do not say so outright. Indeed another well-known Indian Ocean tortoise 
Astrochelys yniphora, a Madagascar endemic, was originally described from a 
specimen traded into and collected on Grande Comore/Ngazidja (Bour, 2007). 
Another Indian Ocean example is that of the small bird Lonchura striata (Linnaeus, 
1766), a native of India and south-east Asia, which was first collected in the island of 
Réunion to which it had been introduced (e.g. Cheke, 2009). Hence the collection 
locality of the type (e.g. Grande Comore, Réunion) need not reflect the true natural 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 295 


range of the species (e.g. Madagascar, India etc.). However as there are several 
recognised races of the bird, the Reunion specimen had at some later time to be 
assigned, by matching to other populations, to a source locality, Ceylon, (Baker, 
1926) to create a nominate race (although Stuart Baker restricted the type locality to 
Ceylon/Sri Lanka, the range of the subspecies extends throughout southern India, 
and the birds introduced to Réunion probably originated in the French trading post 
at Pondicherry on the Tamil coast south of Madras/Chennai). The same issue applies 
to the lectotype of Testudo dussumieri. The Code specifies how to treat a specimen 
from outside its natural range, including an introduced self-sustaining or captive- 
breeding population: Article 76.1.1 states that ‘If capture or collection occurred after 
transport by artificial means, the type locality is the place from which the name- 
bearing type, or its wild progenitor, began its unnatural journey’. Thus, in full 
accordance with the Code, it is entirely in order for the type of an Aldabra tortoise 
to have the granitic Seychelles, Mauritius or Réunion as its collection locality, 
counter-intuitive as this may seem. Some early types inevitably have no unequivocal 
collection locality at all. 

As I have argued previously (BZN 67: 79-81), in a pertinent note Frazier & 
Matyot conspicuously failed to cite in their BZN review, it is highly probable that 
an Aldabra/Seychelles tortoise collected on either the granitic Seychelles or the 
Mascarenes in the mid-1820s would have come from Aldabra, and Frazier & Matyot 
are somewhat selective in their choice of sources to imply an equal likelihood of it 
being a native of the granitic Seychelles. Although native Seychelles animals were 
still being exported in 1807, as Frazier & Matyot (2010) note, by 1815, as I pointed 
out, Aldabran animals were being imported into the granitics in large numbers 
precisely because the native tortoises had become too scarce to be worth hunting 
(full references in my earlier note). It should be remembered that these animals were 
commercially transported to be sold and eaten, not as pets to be kept and nurtured 
for years, so earlier imports from the granitics would mostly have been consumed. 
At ca. 3 years old RMNH 3231, probably collected ca. 1825, would have hatched 
around 1822-3 at the earliest, and hence is unlikely to have originated in the 
granitics, although another, smaller, juvenile Dussumier collected (MNHN 1942), 
stated as being from the Seychelles by Dumeril & Bibron, is considered somewhat 
tentatively to be a granitic native by Bour (2006 & refs. therein) and firmly assigned 
there with no additional identification evidence by Frazier & Matyot (2010); DNA 
extraction failed on this specimen (Austin et al., 2003). Frazier & Matyot also failed 
to acknowledge, as I also pointed out, that the locals on the recipient islands were 
then fully aware of the provenance of animals being imported (their origin 
advertised in sales), and Dussumier would certainly have been told where his 
specimen originated. Hence, whatever Temminck’s occasional shortcomings on 
provenance, that is not an a priori reason to disbelieve his and Schlegel’s designation 
in this specific case. As I have said previously (BZN 67: 79-81) ‘why invent the then 
extremely obscure (to Europeans) locality of Aldabra if there was no reason to do 
so?’ - the obvious inference 1s that at the time of transfer to Leiden the Paris museum 
had information directly from Dussumier that Aldabra was the (ultimate) origin of 
this specimen. 

Frazier & Matyot (2010) profess to being amazed that I should suggest it, but the 
fact that RMNH 3231 cannot be assigned to one or other source on its mtDNA or 


296 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


(according to them) on morphology is of no importance at the level of species, as 
animals from both groups of islands are considered by almost everyone to be 
conspecific (e.g. Austin et al., 2003). Hence, since most authors are agreed that the 
specimen is of the species native to both Aldabra and the granitic Seychelles, it is 
perfectly proper to use it as the lectotype, despite its actual provenance being 
uncertain. Given that some authors split the species into Aldabra and granitic 
Seychelles forms (as subspecies) and a handful consider them species, it does become 
necessary either to restrict dussumieri to one or other group of islands as original 
source (irrespective of where it was collected), or invalidate it (which would take us 
back to T. elephantina for Aldabra animals). Recent study of juveniles of the three 
existing morphotypes (Aldabra and two presumed to be from the granitic islands), 
reared in identical conditions (Gerlach & Bour, 2003; Gerlach, 2011), shows that they 
are statistically distinguishable, and most can be separated individually. RMNH 
3231, a juvenile of straight carapace length 119 mm (Bour & Pritchard, unpublished; 
see photo with scale in Griinewald, 2009), is considered to be a juvenile Aldabra 
tortoise by the only three herpetologists who have personally studied the specimen, 
Bour, Pritchard & Hoogmoed (Hoogmoed et al., 2010; further supporting references 
in BZN 67: 79-81). Furthermore its body co-ordinates, using Gerlach’s (2011) 
analysis, closely fit the Aldabra morphotype, not those presumed to be from the 
granitic islands. A figure showing RMNH’s coordinates superimposed on Gerlach’s 
(2011) figures for living tortoises is available from the author. Its co-ordinates are 
well within the 95% envelope for dorsal and lateral growth patterns, and only just 
outside for the plastral pattern, for which in any case the morphotypes are not clearly 
separable until reaching the 31-40 cm size range (Gerlach, 2011). Given the tradition 
that the specimen came from Aldabra, the long-standing morphological support for 
that view from those who have studied it, and with particular emphasis on the 
additional morpho-statistical evidence, I formally propose that the type locality of 
Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831, represented by the lectotype in Leiden, RMNH 3231, 
be restricted to the Aldabra atoll. The specimen is fully illustrated with all labels by 
Griinewald (2009). 

A further point is that the fact that the mtDNA haplotype exhibited by RMNH 
3231 is not currently found on Aldabra proves nothing. The animal was collected 
long before the late 19th century bottleneck when the population was close to 
extinction (Stoddart & Peake, 1979; Bourn et al., 1999) which could have caused the 
loss of haplotypes (as already noted by Palkovacs et al., 2003). Furthermore it could 
easily have come from an island (Polymnie, Picard [later re-introduced]) where 
tortoises, and thus possibly some haplotypes, were wiped out entirely. Frazier & 
Matyot did not mention that Austin et al. (2003) found 3 other individuals with 
haplotypes 1—4 substitutions adrift from the majority, 2 alive in the Seychelles (and 
considered by the NPTS (Nature Protection Trust of Seychelles) to be granitic 
natives), and one labelled ‘Aldabra’ in the London Natural History Museum. 
Although the ‘B’ haplotype is unique, so are the *C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ examples, thus 
reducing the significance of the small (2 substitutions) difference seen in RMNH 
3231. Balmer et al. (2011), studying the genetic variation in tortoises on Aldabra, did 
not apply their microsatellite analysis to any museum specimens or to living animals 
thought to originate in the granitic islands, though previous work (Palkovacs et al., 
2003) suggests variation is minimal. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 297 


In conclusion, Frazier & Matyot (BZN 68: 140-143) seem to have confused 
collection locality, type locality and geographical origin. Ideally these should be the 
same, but with old specimens, of species that were traded around, released and/or 
bred by humans, they often are not. 


Acknowledgements 


I would like to thank Justin Gerlach for adding specimen RMNH 3231 to his 
morphological growth plots for Aldabra and presumed granitic Seychelles tortoises, 
and supplying the diagram modified from his 2011 paper with Dussumier’s specimen 
added. Roger Bour contributed an important new observation on the holotype of 
Testudo gigantea and made useful comments on a draft. 


Additional references 


Baker, E.C.S. 1926. The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Birds - Vol. III. xx, 
489 pp. Taylor & Francis, London. 

Bour, R. 2006. An unnamed tortoise from the Seychelles Islands. Emys, 13(3): 24-30. 

Bour, R. 2007. The Plowshare tortoise: past, present, and uncertain future. The type of Testudo 
yniphora Vaillant, 1885, with a selected bibliography. Emys, 14 (1): 33-46. 

Bourn, D., Gibson, C., Augeri, D., Wilson, C.J., Church, J. & Hay, S.I. 1999. The rise and fall 
of the Aldabran giant tortoise population. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B 
Biological Sciences, 266: 1091-1100. 

Cheke, A.S. 2009. Data sources for 18th century French encyclopaedists - what they used and 
omitted: evidence of data lost and ignored from the Mascarene Islands, Indian Ocean. 
Journal of the National Museum Praha, Natural History Series, 177: 91-117. 

Frazier, J. & Matyot, P. 2010. On the identity of Monsieur Dussumier’s Dutch tortoise and the 
lectotype of Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831. Zootaxa, 2665: 29-SO. 

Gerlach, J. & Bour, R. 2003. Morphology of hatchling Dipsochelys giant tortoises. Radiata, 
12(3): 11-20. 

Gerlach, J. 2011. Development of distinct morphotypes in captive Seychelles—Aldabra giant 
tortoises. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 10(1): 102-112. 

Griinewald, F. 2009.Museumcollecties ... RMNH 3231 (Dipsochelys dussumieri) Gray, 1831. 
Trionyx, 7: 136-142. 

Hoogmoed, M.S., Gass6 Miracle, M.E. & van den Hoek Ostende, L.W. 2010. Type specimens 
of recent and fossil Testudines and Crocodylia in the collections of the Netherlands Centre 
for Biodiversity, Naturalis, Leiden, the Netherlands. Zoologische Mededelingen, Leiden, 
84(8): 159-199. 

Palkovacs, E.P., Marschner, M., Ciofi, C., Gerlach, J., & Caccones A. 2003. Are the native 
giant tortoises from the Seychelles really extinct? A genetic perspective based on mtDNA 
and microsatellite data. Molecular Ecology, 12: 1403-13. 

Stoddart, D.R. & Peake, J.F. 1979. Historical records of Indian Ocean giant tortoise 
populations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B, 286: 147-161. 


(2) C. Smeenk 


Netherlands Centre for Biodiversity Naturalis (National Museum of Natural 
History), PO Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands 
(e-mail: chris.smeenk@ncbnaturalis.nl) 


The locality of the lectotype of Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831 


The latest comment by Frazier & Matyot (BZN 68: 140-143), in reaction to the 
preceding one by Hoogmoed (BZN 68: 72-77), cannot go unanswered. The main 


298 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


point, time and again raised by Frazier & Matyot, is that the locality Aldabra is 
unreliable and is actually likely to be Mahé, with the argument (p. 140) that ‘There 
is no evidence that J.-J. Dussumier, considered to be the collector of the lectotype, 
ever visited Aldabra, but he is definitely known to have made collections on Mahé, 
in the granitic Seychelles.’ No doubt this is correct, but Dussumier was a merchant, 
and merchants buy interesting things from interesting places wherever they come 
across them. Museums all over the world are full of specimens obtained that way, and 
I can give a great many examples from the Leiden Museum that were received from 
collectors or travellers who did not visit the localities from where (part of) their 
material originated. Austin et al. (2003, p. 1421) write, quoting 19th-century 
references, that tortoises from Aldabra were shipped to the central Seychelles and 
other islands in those days, often in great numbers (see also Bour et al., BZN 67: 
72-73; Cheke, BZN 67: 79-81, and Hoogmoed et al., 2010, p. 176). Even Frazier & 
Matyot (2010, p. 140) themselves stated that Dussumier was also known to have 
visited the Mascarene Islands of Mauritius and Ile Bourbon (La Réunion), where 
thousands of tortoises from the granitic Seychelles, as well as from Aldabra, had been 
imported; they confirm this on p. 142. So the fact that Dussumier himself never 
visited Aldabra cannot be put forward as an argument against the recorded 
provenance of this tortoise. Strangely, whereas Frazier in his letter to me of 7 July 
admits that ‘We have never said that it is impossible that Dussumier somehow 
(perhaps by trade, perhaps by purchase, perhaps by exchange?) obtained a tortoise 
from Aldabra’, the authors again ignore this obvious explanation in their latest 
comment, just saying (p. 141) that ‘there is no mention of any Dussumier tortoise 
from Aldabra’. In Leiden there is, disqualified as it may be by Frazier & Matyot. 

These authors elaborate on three points: the very brief description by Gray (1831b) 
which they call (p. 141) ‘confused for many reasons’, the absence of an original label, 
and the data published by Schlegel in Temminck & Schlegel (1834) (see Tschudi, 1838 
for Schlegel’s sole authorship) which they mistrust, erroneously quoting Hoogmoed 
(BZN 68: 74) in saying (p. 141) ‘the source of this is unknown’. I will address each of 
these subjects. 

(1) Gray (1831b). — Gray’s original description is very brief indeed, but not at all 
‘confused’. Gray enumerates the species of reptiles known to him, starting with the 
genus Testudo (p. 8), number | (p. 9) being ‘Test. Indica, (Indian Tortoise.)’. He 
mentions the specimens seen by him under the names by which they were arranged 
in the various collections. The Leiden one appears as follows: ‘Junior. Testa nigra 
margine laterali angulato, areolis magnis. Test. Dussumieri, Schlegel MSS. (v. Mus. 
Leyd.) — Pet. Gaz. t. 76, f. 4.’ (the latter reference does not relate to the Leiden 
animal); and further: ‘Habitat in India Orientali, Gen. Hardwicke, Insula Mauritiana, 
Insula Aldebra, M. Dussumiere.’ Gray had not the intention of describing a new 
species, but referred to a specimen in the Leiden Museum (v. = vide = see) identified 
by him as 7. indica, and bearing the manuscript name ‘7. Dussumieri’ apparently 
used by Schlegel, then the Curator of Vertebrates and the herpetologist of the Leiden 
Museum. These manuscript notes (MSS being plural) could have been labels or any 
other written records relating to the specimen. 

(2) Labels. — Regarding the lack of an original label: in the great majority of 
collections from the early 19th century, very few original labels (if there were any; 
data were often provided in the form of letters or other notes) have been preserved, 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 299 


and the Leiden Museum is no exception, unfortunately. Regarding alcohol speci- 
mens: many labels in jars faded with time, so had to be copied for that reason alone, 
or were glued to the outside of jars and could not be replaced when specimens were 
rearranged. New labels would bear the scientific names then in use, and in most cases 
did not repeat manuscript names that had become obsolete. This explains why the 
name Testudo Dussumieri was not entered onto the oldest label of this tortoise that 
still exists; in the meantime, both Gray and Schlegel had identified the specimen as 
T. indica. The same holds true for the first record in the museum’s written catalogue, 
which was composed much later. 

(3) Schlegel (1834). — A few years after Gray’s (1831b) synopsis, the locality of this 
tortoise was specified by Schlegel, in the reptile volume of the Fauna Japonica edited 
by Temminck & Schlegel; the section on chelonians (pp. 1-80) was published in 
January 1834, see Holthuis & Sakai (1970, p. 75). Following Gray, Schlegel too, 
included the specimen in Testudo indica: ‘This institution has received another very 
young individual from the Paris Museum, communicated under the name of Test. 
Dussumieri, brought back by the traveller whose name it bears, from the island of 
Aldebra, situated in the north of the Mozambique Channel.’ (transl. from French). 
This is in line with Gray’s reference to the manuscript name ‘7. Dussumieri’ — even 
the spelling ‘Aldebra’ is the same. This text may be regarded as relatively good 
provenance for the specimen and support for the view that these data are genuine and 
had been provided by Paris, along with the accompanying manuscript name. Frazier 
& Matyot conclude (p. 141): “As Hoogmoed explained (BZN 68: 74 and following 
pages), it is unknown on what Temminck & Schlegel based this statement’, and 
further on: ‘The basis for his assertion now rests on Temminck & Schlegel’s (1834) 
above-quoted statement, although Hoogmoed acknowledges that the source of this is 
unknown’. This is a misquotation. On the contrary, Hoogmoed says (p. 74): 
‘Temminck & Schlegel (1834) made the published, printed statement about name, 
collector, locality and specimen on the basis of documentation (in whichever form) 
they had received from Paris with the specimen concerned’, i.e. the information had 
been ‘communicated’ by the Paris Museum with the specimen in the form of a label 
or some other document. 


The identity of the lectotype of Testudo dussumieri (Gray, 1831) 


Frazier & Matyot did not check the identity of RMNH 3231 themselves, either by 
studying the animal or by asking another herpetologist to provide a clear description, 
measurements and photographs. The tortoise has been studied by several herpetolo- 
gists, professionals and knowledgeable amateurs, in recent years R. Bour, P.C.H. 
Pritchard, M.S. Hoogmoed and F. Griinewald. They have all independently ident- 
ified it as an Aldabra tortoise; see Griinewald (BZN 67: 178) and Hoogmoed (BZN 
68: 72). Excellent colour photographs have appeared in various publications, e.g. 
Gerlach (2004, p. 68) in a book reviewed by Frazier (2006b, p. 370 — “The 
photographs of rarely seen type specimens are valuable’) and Griinewald (2009, 
p. 137-138) who gives four photographs showing measurement scales. Frazier & 
Matyot have not criticized the findings of these authors, nor discussed the dis- 
tinguishing characters used, and not commented on the published photographs. It is 
a young animal; even if this might be difficult to distinguish from similar specimens 


300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 


from other islands, that should be clearly stated and discussed. For want of 
any morphological evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to doubt the 
identifications by these herpetologists. 

Finally, there are the genetic studies (Austin et al., 2003; Balmer et al., 2010) which 
have proved inconclusive. Frazier & Matyot (2010, p. 143) rightly conclude that ‘the 
taxonomic identity of the lectotype remains unresolved’; i.e. as far as genetic studies 
are concerned. 


Conclusions 


In their paper and comments, Frazier & Matyot reiterate that the provenance of 
RMNH 3231 is ‘uncertain’, but this uncertainty results from disbelieving the data 
accompanying the specimen. With so much uncertainty surrounding the lectotype, in 
their opinion the name Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831 should really be suppressed. 
Whatever arguments there may be in favour of that on other grounds, any possible 
doubt concerning the provenance of the lectotype is not a sufficient reason. 


Additional references 


Balmer, O., Ciofi, C., Galbraith, D.A., Swingland, I.R., Zug, G.R. & Caccone, A. 2010. 
Population genetic structure of Aldabra giant tortoises. Journal of Heredity, Advance 
Access August 30, 2010: 1-9. 

Frazier, J. & Matyot, P. 2010. On the identity of Monsieur Dussumier’s Dutch tortoise and the 
lectotype of Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831. Zootaxa, 2665: 29-50. 

Gerlach, J. 2004. Giant tortoises of the Indian Ocean. The genus Dipsochelys inhabiting the 
Seychelles Islands and the extinct giants of Madagascar and the Mascarenes. Frankfurter 
Beitrdge zur NaturkundelFrankfurt Contributions to Natural History, 21: 1-207. Edition 
Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main. 

Griinewald, F. 2009. Museumcollecties. RMNH 3231 (Dipsochelys dussumieri) Gray, 1831. 
Trionyx, 7: 136-142. 

Holthuis, L.B. & Sakai, T. 1970. Ph. F. von Siebold and Fauna Japonica. A history of early 
Japanese zoology. 323 pp. Academic Press of Japan, Tokyo. 

Hoogmoed, M.S., Gass6 Miracle, M.E. & van den Hoek Ostende, L.W. 2010. Type specimens 
of recent and fossil Testudines and Crocodylia in the collections of the Netherlands Centre 
for Biodiversity Naturalis, Leiden, the Netherlands. Zoologische Mededelingen Leiden, 84: 
159-199. 

Smeenk, C. 2009. Has one of Captain Cook’s possums landed in Leiden? The possible holotype 
of Pseudocheirus peregrinus (Boddaert, 1785). Zoologische Mededelingen Leiden, 83: 
723-740. 

Temminck, C.J. 1821. Calao a casque sillonné. Buceros sulcatus. Temm. In: Temminck, C.J. & 
Le Baron Meiffren Laugier de Chartrouse (Eds.), Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées 
d oiseaux, pour servir de suite et de complément aux planches enluminées de Buffon., Vol. 2. 
2 pp., | pl. [unnumbered]. F.G. Levrault, Paris/Strasbourg & Legras Imbert & Comp., 
Amsterdam. 

Temminck, C.J. 1824. Premiére monographie. Sur le genre Phalanger. — Phalangista. (Geoff.) 
(1). In: Monographies de mammalogie, ou description de quelques genres de mammiferes, 
dont les espéces ont été observées dans les différens musées de l'Europe. Tome premier: 1—20, 
pls I-IV. G. Dufour & Ed. D’Ocagne, Paris/Amsterdam. 

Schlegel, H. 1834. Les chéloniens. Jn: Temminck, C.J. & Schlegel, H. (Eds.), Fauna Japonica 
auctore Ph. Fr. de Siebold. Reptilia elaborantibus C.J. Temminck et H. Schlegel. 80 pp., 
9 pls. J.G. Lalau, Lugduni Batavorum. 

Tschudi, J.J. 1838. Classification der Batrachier, mit Berticksichtigung der fossilen Thiere 
dieser Abtheilung der Reptilien. Mémoires de la Société des Sciences Naturelles de 
Neuchatel, 2: 1-99, pls 1-6. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 301 


OPINION 2286 (Case 3509) 


Cetonia squamosa Gory & Percheron, 1833 (currently Aethiessa 
squamosa; Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name conserved 


Abstract. The Commission has conserved the specific name Cetonia squamosa Gory 
& Percheron, 1833 by ruling that it is not invalid by reason of being a junior 
homonym of C. squamosa Lefebvre, 1827 (currently Protaetia (Netocia) squamosa, 
also CETONIIDAE), endemic in southern Italy including Sicily. 


Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; CETONIIDAE; Protaetia squamosa; Aethiessa 
squamosa; flower chafers; Southern Italy; Sicily; North Africa. 


Ruling 
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the name squamosa Gory & 
Percheron, 1833, as published in the binomen Cetonia squamosa, is not invalid 
by reason of being a junior primary homonym of sguamosa Lefebvre, 1827, as 
published in the binomen Cetonia squamosa. 
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology: 
(a) squamosa Lefebvre, 1827, as published in the binomen Cetonia squamosa; 
(b) squamosa Gory & Percheron, 1833, as published in the binomen Cetonia 
squamosa, with the endorsement that it is not invalid by reason of being a 
junior primary homonym of sqguamosa Lefebvre, 1827, as published in the 
binomen Cetonia squamosa, as ruled in (1) above. 


History of Case 3509 


An application to conserve the specific name Cetonia squamosa Gory & Percheron, 
1833 by ruling that it is not invalid by reason of being a junior homonym of C. 
squamosa Lefebvre, 1827 (currently Protaetia (Netocia) squamosa, also CETONIIDAE, 
endemic in southern Italy including Sicily) was received from Ignazio Sparacio 
(Palermo, Italy) on 30 November 2009. After correspondence the case was published 
in BZN 67: 133-136 (2010). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were 
published on the Commission’s website. No comments were received on this case. 


Decision of the Commission 


On | June 2011 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals 
publ